disabled will NOT be exempt from 'bedroom tax'

Children under 10 are expected to share a bedroom regardless of gender, but not with a sibling of the opposite sex beyond that age.

Children of the same gender are expected to share until the age of 16.

What happens when the disabled child reaches 18?

deserving

People with Social Housing should downsize if they are on their own and have 3 bedrooms.
If it is a private house then a person on their own should be able to have as many bedrooms as they like as long as the council tax is paid.

Frank

I don't think this affects children. I think they are exempt but perhaps someone else knows more?

A distant relative has two daughters, 15 and 17 - one is severely disabled and has lifting equipment both upstairs and down. Her room has padded walls by her bed area, the special bed is wider than a single., and there is a sort of lift with a steel cover in the floor that brings her upstairs. If another bed went in there, her lift wouldn't be usable. Mum and dad occasionally sleep in a sleeping bag in her room when she is very ill. Paternal parents live next door and help out morning and evening. I'd like to see how they a) justify the two girls sharing, b) find the family a smaller adapted two bedroomed house with one very big bedroom, or c) justify withdrawing a percentage of their housing benefit. Both parents have low paid work.

A bit of common sense wouldn't go amiss!

Ne etc
You are quite a youngster ,and will probably have no idea to what I am referring ." Bliss."
Did you see, anywhere, me remarking that people were not entitled to some benefit if the criteria was reached? That would include you and myself as well.
You are also assuming that I do not already have a serious illness, And a disability.
My remarks were of a general nature and are supported by a majority of people in this country, many of them recipients of one form of benefit or another.The application of benefits is a farrago. It needs to be sorted, some sorting could be done at a local level were the local councils not trying to torpedo the government, for political reasons. Rather than helping the constituents. They complain, misinterpret and scupper any attempts to rationalise the system.
Your first remarks, the ones that were not directly aimed at me were an example of where discretion could be applied.I imagine there, are people with one bedroomed flats, who have disabled persons living with them, and likewise people who are homeless, with disabilities, do we not then think that a single person with three bedrooms should not have a certain responsibility to think about downsizing?
I also realise that their may not be a smaller house readily available, I can think of as many problems as you and , no doubt others, that disagree with me, it doesn't mean we should, "Keep digging" we shouldn't have to sink deeper into the mire.Some attempt needs to be made, some initially will be unfair, it has always been the case.A little "snagging" is inevitable but it doesn't mean nothing should be attempted.
My reply is not the nemeses your post deserves because I assume you are a little upset, and in slate Dis mode.

Surely each child should have a room of their own - isn't that the way it works? I don't know anyone that is affected by this so please forgive my ignorance.

I admit to knowing nothing about how these things are decided but surely there could be some sort of coded system where these people/families who need the extra space for whatever genuine reason can have a code put against their files/ names etc so that they do not have the worry of having to go to tribunals/court whatever. If you have a disabled person needing special care that must be hard enough, but to have this extra worry about remaining in your home and needing to pay more money or move out must be dreadful. Most of us know just how stressful moving can be when no-one is disabled.
It is also not just about the dwelling itself but about the friends/ support network which has maybe been built up over a number of years.
I think we have crazy politicians, many of whom have never lived in the real world where some people are unlucky enough to have many trials and tribulations, but just get on with their lot because they have to.
Once again I would suspect that there a whole raft of managerial people who are deciding things and taking a high percentage of the budget in salaries.

So Deserving are you going to sign a declaration that if you develop a serious illness or disability you will not accept financial support to assist you.
That will happily save all us other tax payers a bit of money its very noble of you. What a good person you are. Meet saint Deserving everyone!

They have not a clue about how such things affect people. There must be a lot of families with very disabled adult relatives or children who could be affected by this piece of of government idiocy.
Imagine trying to have two young children in a room where one child needs a lot of night time attention for health needs or could be very restless or destructive.
Where this is already social housing any new accommodation will also need to be adapted to allow for that disabled persons mobility need.

I think local authorities have the power to use their discretion in individual cases. The majority of the local councils haven t the people with sufficient intellect to do this, but have the "street knowledge" to disregard their responsibilities, and blame the government.
Saw someone who needed a room for equipment, the equipment I saw could have been put in a shed, it had obviously been scattered strategically for the cameras.
This is the problem everybody thinks they should be supported, "Up to the hilt" off the backs of the tax payer, some of you will remember when benefits were few and far between, and disgrace was felt if one had to resort to accepting any. Not to say that a return to this is acceptable, although in some countries they have never got away from it,but their are some "freeloaders" that can manipulate the various systems in such a manner that it could almost be likened to an occupation, in fact I think some do give lessons.
Something needs to be done, the majority agree,many benefits are should be stopped or amended the difficulty is "the cherry picking" necessary to satisfy this majority, we all have our particular band wagons, The sooner someone can combine the various benefits,and apply them with some discretion bearing in mind the requirements particular to the proposed recipients the better. A very difficult task.
Not to be avoided because it is difficult or likely to be unpopular in various quarters, when we have more on benefits than are not it will be impossible.

I'm furious as well - it's so hard to believe any government could behave in the way this one does.

I am so furious I am incapable of a coherent post. Tories/ Libdems - don't you just love 'em !!

Can they do anything under the Disability Discrimination Act? I can't believe (well, I can) how callous this government is!

sorry crossed posts

Just heard that the challenge has been lost when, but the families are going to appeal. The judge was scathing about it all and said the situation couldn't be allowed to continue.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23503095

Just caught up with the news, and cottoned on that the deed has been done - disgraceful!

when that's what prompted my post. They've just announced they lost their case.

There is a legal challenge today - a disabled woman who can't share her room because of the space needed for her equipment. I wonder if they'll say the ruling stands but they can apply from a fund for the money?

Me too nina.