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

Bedroom Tax Loophole Could Exempt 40,000 Wrongly Identified As Liable

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/09/bedroom-tax-loophole-exempt-liable-housing-benefit

Thousands of people have been wrongly identified as liable for the bedroom tax, including some who now face eviction or have been forced to move to a smaller property, as a result of an error by Department of Work and Pensions.

Housing experts believe as many as 40,000 people could be affected by the mistake. The DWP says it believes only a "small number" of tenants are affected, which it estimates number 5,000.

All could be eligible for refunds worth on average at least £640 per claimant and millions in aggregate.

The error affects working age tenants in social housing who have occupied the same home continuously since 1996. An oversight by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) when drafting the legislation means that the housing benefit regulations dating from 1996 were not updated when the coalition legislated for the bedroom tax.

Yet another govt **** up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a better idea. scrap all benefits and let people fend for themselves.

im sick of supporting people I've never met, who will never give me anything back for my support and quite Frankly dont given fec about anyone else and certainly not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a better idea. scrap all benefits and let people fend for themselves.

im sick of supporting people I've never met, who will never give me anything back for my support and quite Frankly dont given fec about anyone else and certainly not me.

Just take a deep breath and calm down for a moment... instead of falling hook line and sinker for the tory fact-free ideology of *strivers vs scroungers* , just stop and think for a moment and you might come to regard out-of-work benefits less as something that strivers *hand out* to scroungers and more as a form of insurance.. otherwise you might just find yourself falling for the oldest tactic in the ruling class's book ...divide and conquer...

I do trust (hope) you are not daft enough to fall for it... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just take a deep breath and calm down for a moment... instead of falling hook line and sinker for the tory fact-free ideology of *strivers vs scroungers* , just stop and think for a moment and you might come to regard out-of-work benefits less as something that strivers *hand out* to scroungers and more as a form of insurance.. otherwise you might just find yourself falling for the oldest tactic in the ruling class's book ...divide and conquer...

I do trust (hope) you are not daft enough to fall for it... ;)

The main benefit I object to is Landlord Benefit. Withdraw it gradually over 5 years and use the billions saved to build social housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main benefit I object to is Landlord Benefit. Withdraw it gradually over 5 years and use the billions saved to build social housing.

Most Housing Benefit goes to councils/HAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was it supposed to save, a paltry £400m a year? That's not even a rounding error when set against the scale of Osborne's borrowing.

And what's it ended up costing instead? Not to mention the misery and disquiet it's caused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i have a better idea. scrap all benefits and let people fend for themselves.

im sick of supporting people I've never met, who will never give me anything back for my support and quite Frankly dont given fec about anyone else and certainly not me.

Does 'fending for themselves' include breaking into your house looking for food or cash?

The truth is that we don't want people to fend for themselves- that's why we employ a large police force and run a prison system- to make sure they don't get any funny ideas about putting their own self interest above the rights of others.

So the choice really comes down to something like this- is it cheaper to contain these people by paying their rent and food bills or by arresting them and putting them in jail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What was it supposed to save, a paltry £400m a year? That's not even a rounding error when set against the scale of Osborne's borrowing.

And what's it ended up costing instead? Not to mention the misery and disquiet it's caused.

The misery was not a by product-it was the primary objective- designed to demonstrate the ruthless resolve the Tory party has in it's war on the poor.

They could have chosen instead to get their 400 million by closing a few tax loopholes- but bankers do not bleed nearly as prettily or as publicly as the soon to be homeless chav.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just take a deep breath and calm down for a moment... instead of falling hook line and sinker for the tory fact-free ideology of *strivers vs scroungers* , just stop and think for a moment and you might come to regard out-of-work benefits less as something that strivers *hand out* to scroungers and more as a form of insurance.. otherwise you might just find yourself falling for the oldest tactic in the ruling class's book ...divide and conquer...

I do trust (hope) you are not daft enough to fall for it... ;)

+1

Also considering that you will have much tougher competition when you apply for a job due to all those "scroungers" also applying for your job (after they are " nudged" by the Government to look for work).Also consider that you moght lose your job or be reduced to part time work.You might need those benefits to get you through.Anyhow, benefits for the masses are dwarfed by the benefits for banks/pfi etc which run into trillions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the line

"this act overrides any other act relating to this" not included?

You have to wonder about the quality of civil servants at the HoP doing all the bill writing. They're not all in a labour union are they?

I did think they wanted to free up bigger family houses for families ... which is a good plan. Just executed very poorly.

Edited by SarahBell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main benefit I object to is Landlord Benefit. Withdraw it gradually over 5 years and use the billions saved to build social housing.

You missed Banker Benefit in the hierarchy. That's like accusing priests of kiddy fiddling while the Pope takes you up the ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just take a deep breath and calm down for a moment... instead of falling hook line and sinker for the tory fact-free ideology of *strivers vs scroungers* , just stop and think for a moment and you might come to regard out-of-work benefits less as something that strivers *hand out* to scroungers and more as a form of insurance.. otherwise you might just find yourself falling for the oldest tactic in the ruling class's book ...divide and conquer...

I do trust (hope) you are not daft enough to fall for it... ;)

You do realise you can buy private unemployment insurance, right?

It's actually a lot cheaper and more generous than what the government provides - for a limited time period anyway, so you won't be able to mooch for an entire lifetime with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is believed that some tenants who may now be deemed exempt will have received hundreds of pounds in emergency discretionary housing payments (DHPs) since April to help them cope with the shortfall in their income caused by the bedroom tax. They will have their housing benefit refunded, but will not be obliged to repay the DHP cash, which may result in some actually gaining hundreds of pounds in cash.

taken from the article - why????

expect 'compo' claims as well - as well as the chancers who will 'try it on'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a better idea. scrap all benefits and let people fend for themselves.

im sick of supporting people I've never met, who will never give me anything back for my support and quite Frankly dont given fec about anyone else and certainly not me.

Knowing how governments work, I can't see your tax bill going down in that scenario. Plus you will pay much more in insurance because of the increase in crime and your 'home' will have to be kitted out like a fortress. Then you get laid off and you're fecked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never get my head round why they did this in the first place. Was it really such a problem? Did it save any money? (my bet is that it cost more).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing how governments work, I can't see your tax bill going down in that scenario. Plus you will pay much more in insurance because of the increase in crime and your 'home' will have to be kitted out like a fortress. Then you get laid off and you're fecked.

+1

We will always have to pay extortinate amounts of tax even with zero unemployment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a better idea. scrap all benefits and let people fend for themselves.

im sick of supporting people I've never met, who will never give me anything back for my support and quite Frankly dont given fec about anyone else and certainly not me.

Very succinctly put, I couldn't agree more.

There seems a corrupt attitude that benefit scroungers should be feted in some way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just take a deep breath and calm down for a moment... instead of falling hook line and sinker for the tory fact-free ideology of *strivers vs scroungers* , just stop and think for a moment and you might come to regard out-of-work benefits less as something that strivers *hand out* to scroungers and more as a form of insurance.. otherwise you might just find yourself falling for the oldest tactic in the ruling class's book ...divide and conquer...

I do trust (hope) you are not daft enough to fall for it... ;)

I don't see it as insurance in anyway.

If I could keep half the amount I pay in tax in my own insurance fund, I'd have far more than I could ever get from benefits. Quite clearly I am being asked to subsidise the undeserving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see it as insurance in anyway.

If I could keep half the amount I pay in tax in my own insurance fund, I'd have far more than I could ever get from benefits. Quite clearly I am being asked to subsidise the undeserving.

Take a look at the labour market flow stats sometime.. if you did, they would tell you that unemployment is not static with many people moving from "scrounger" to "striver" (ie. the numbers of long-term unemployed are lower than you might think).. so, there but for the grace of God and all that .. now this meme (Striver v scrounger) is not just about demonising the eternal scapegoat of the free-rider... it's also about insisting that the rest of us must work harder (*hard-working families*?) .. despite all evidence showing that capital is already beating the cr*p out of labour...

I'd like to say that this is limited to the likes of the tories' Britannia Unchained group..but the idea seems to have become embedded across the party spectrum... :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just to add one more point.. the biggest scroungers in the UK are the bankers and corporate managers who got colossal business subsidies to protect their obscenely high-paid jobs.... and of course the home owners who got effort-free tax-free capital gains of £10k+ a year for decades... and for whose sake austerity is being extended to ensure that interest rates stay low to keep house prices up (singing to the choir here I know)..

The people down on their luck because of the profligacy of the categories above, meanwhile, cost just a few hundred pounds a month each by contrast.... so perhaps when some are looking for *scroungers* to scapegoat, well...... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just to add one more point.. the biggest scroungers in the UK are the bankers and corporate managers who got colossal business subsidies to protect their obscenely high-paid jobs.... and of course the home owners who got effort-free tax-free capital gains of £10k+ a year for decades... and for whose sake austerity is being extended to ensure that interest rates stay low to keep house prices up (singing to the choir here I know)..

The people down on their luck because of the profligacy of the categories above, meanwhile, cost just a few hundred pounds a month each by contrast.... so perhaps when some are looking for *scroungers* to scapegoat, well...... ;)

+1

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:   204 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.