disabled will NOT be exempt from 'bedroom tax'

And someone has to fund the £1 million pounds to renovate Kensington Palace and today I read they are having a country pile also "brought up to standard" for those odd weekends away. I don't suppose it all comes out of HM's pocket.

deserving If you live in a 2nd or higher level flat, the odds are that you do not have a garden and therefore wouldn't have a shed.
I can only imagine the hassle it would be for the disabled persons carer to have to bring the hoist from the shed every morning in order to get the person out of bed. What about transfering from wheelchair to toilet three or four times a day. A carers lot is hard enough without those added problems !

You may be right, Moved.

www.disabilityrightsuk.org/bedroom-tax

Nina - don't care there . The last thing Deserving wants is a thoughtful, serious discussion about a heartbreaking subject.

Unfortunately bluebell I think your right

No Ana - it's not statutory - it's guidance and discretionary. The court was quite cross that the government hasn't put legislation in place yet - as I said, it's been too busy. Also, the argument still holds with a disabled adult.

You would think David Cameron would have a little more empathy given that his severely disabled son didn't live beyond childhood. As bluebell said, there would have been no need for room sharing in their house. I read somewhere that the whole basement area of their previous home was given over to Ivan's needs. He should be championing the cause of families coping with disability - not rubbing their noses in it.

I don't think you should be dismissing deserving's post in that way just because it doesn't fit with your own views BB. Everyone on GN has the right to state their opinion without fear if ridicule. I may not agree with their views 100% but that's not the issue.
This particular ruling does seem unjust though.

I can't even be bothered to try and understand it frankly but the bit I did glean sounded incredibly harsh!

Really, you didn't bother to 'try and understand it'?

Some of the points Deserving was trying to make are no one knows if she suffers a disability; many people in this country support cutting back the welfare bill; the system is a mess and needs fixing; local councils could do more but they are often in conflict with central government; there are homeless people living with disabilities; there are not enough smaller houses available but something needs to be done and there may be an element of unfairness while we try to get a better system.... need I go on?

The bedroom tax is cruel and callous. Why should people in social housing be forced to move, Frank? Why should they leave an area they have lived in for many years and feel safe? As there are not enough smaller properties available to rent the idea doesn't work anyway. This is just a way of reducing benefit.

I'm not saying that housing benefit should be unlimited but it's affecting people who rent at reasonable rates. My rent is £425 for a two up two down but I only get £292 in benefit. The only places that are cheaper are the 'no go' areas of the city and even if I moved there my rent wouldn't be covered because I need to have two bedrooms. Why do I need two rooms? Well every weekend and during the school holidays our children aged 5 and 7 come to stay. I pointed this out but was told that the don't need a room to sleep in. They can sleep on our bedroom floor or they can sleep in our bed and we can sleep on the floor. Does anyone really think it's right to expect children to sleep on the floor or for a brother and sister to share a bed as they get older?

Council tax benefit has also been reduced so that we all have to pay at least 25%. Bearing in mind that benefits were originally calculated to allow people to live assuming their rent and council tax were paid this is a massive reduction in benefit payments.

vampirequeen

I have to pay for my house and pay more than I will get in state pension in tax.
As far as I am concerned only the minimum should be provided by the tax payer where necessary.

Frank

That's rich Frank given that you devote much energy into increasing the amounts taxpayers have to spend on care so that individual inheritances are safeguarded

Even if one agreed that a lot of disabled people didn't need extra rooms for all the various reasons that they do has anyone considered the practicalities of them moving house? How on earth is a family, already stretched by caring for a disabled member, going to find a smaller house or flat and finance the move? Presumably many of them are living in homes that have been modified to help with their needs - who will pay for new homes to be modified? What about access to hospitals, physiotherapy or other specialist care they may need. It's all very well telling people they can always move to a smaller home, but it can't be done!

The idea that your children should be expected to sleep on the floor is disgusting vampirequeen it makes them sound like stray animals you've taken in

bluebell

I am not devoting energy to increasing the amounts taxpayers have to spend. I am just making sure the law is applied correctly.
Social workers try to tell the offspring to sell their jointly owned and occupied house which totally unlawful and have also tried to tell the offspring they are responsible to pay top up because there is no suitable home which will take their parent at the councils usual rate.
They also try to tell the children they have got to pay when the NHS is liable.
In one case they even tried to say they would be responsible if they refused to provide funding for a parent to be put in to a secure nursing home if they injure somebody or possibly even worse.
In one case the social worker did try to tell the daughter to downsize her house to pay for the father's care which the father did not even partly own.

Frank

In all this also spare a thought for families who are in B&B accommodation. Most have to vacate the room during the day and wander the streets with small children in tow. The man I saw on TV was in a 3-bedroomed house, with his stepdaughter and was using his third room to store his hoist and his wheelchair. When my uncle (a retired GP) was so disabled with arthritis that he needed two make carers and a hoist to get him up in the morning, the hoist was kept in their bedroom, his wheel chair in the corridor. I do understand the arguments and sympathise with the disabled but these three bedroomed properties are needed for families and solutions have to be found.
My grandchildren have slept on the floor when they stayed over but thank goodness they've never had to wander the streets or go into B&B accommodation.

I don't agree with families opting out of their responsibilities regarding care fees either frank and your 'law' has yet to be tested in a court case.

Now having upset everyone, of all politic persuasions I'll take myself off to bed

Aka

Families have no legal responsibility for care fees. It is only the patient who is responsible.
Also as I have said if a person on his own wants to live in a 10 bedroom property and can pay to purchase it and afford the running costs there is no reason why he / she should not.

Frank

Frank people who make legal arrangements to hold their property as 'tenants in common' do so for the sole purpose of avoiding paying care fees.
This is avoidance.
Why should families have their cake and eat it? If the children want the parental home to come to them after their parents death then they should look after that parent not expect the state to pick up the bill. Or the house should be sold to pay for care costs. Or the person could pay for a daily cater out of their London pensions.
You cannot malign people on benefit and accuse them of being a burden on the tax payer and then advocate finding ways of fleecing the NHS yourself.

Now I really am off to bed

It's really cruel to put disabled people through all this stress. And I also think non-disabled people are being badly treated too. It's not unreasonable for someone to have one spare bedroom.

What we need is more housing - and no amount of fiddling about with the benefit system is going to rectify the problem. The rot started with the Conservatives selling off council housing.

Many experts have predicted that the new policy of guaranteeing mortgages will also badly destablise the private housing market - when demand is created that cannot be met, prices go up. Presumably rents will go up too.

This government is just a collection of bullies - picking on those that cannot defend themselves because they're too cowardly to tackle the real villains.

Eloethan - absolutely! The real problem is a shortage of affordable housing both to buy and rent. Look how successful this coalition is being in deflecting the arguments into where to store hoists and wheelchairs! I know it's awful about families in B&B but the problem isn't caused by disabled people but by government policies and the blessed Margaret started that ball rolling. Also, what about the absolute fact that in parts of the country, there simply aren't smaller properties for people to move into. How can it be right by any measure that you reduce someone's benefits for having an extra room when there is NO smaller house for them . What about homes that have been especially adapted? And who can defend forcing a disabled child with disturbed sleep patterns into having to share with a sibling. Wicked, evil, heartless, vindictive - but never mind , let people who can afford a 75% mortgage on a £600,000 house have an interest free loan of £100,000. Lets have another hike in house prices so that homeowners will have a feel good factor in time for the next election. The economics of the madhouse.

And Frank, you know full well what I object to with you - it's the whole tenants in common, parents leaving half a house to a son or daughter business - that is as Aka says a deliberate strategy to avoid paying care fees and for everyone who does that, the la has to fund part of their care and so there is less for essential services whilst some adult child increases their inheritance. A form of cheating and scrounging that you completely subscribe to and encourage. Shame on you!

£120,000 not £100, 000 - even worse!

Frank, do you think I enjoy having to claim benefits. I was brought up to work and that's exactly what I did from the age of 15 to 53 then I became ill and my world collapsed. My husband is my carer which saves the taxpayer a huge amount of money not only in home care but in how often I would be in hospital. He also works 17 and half hours a week so we can feel we're still contributing something to society. 17 and half hours a week doesn't sound much but there are times when I'm not safe within that period.

Not all benefit claimants are scroungers. Some of us have actually paid our dues and unfortunately have had to claim earlier than we expected.

Benefit payments including housing benefit were worked out to provide a certain acceptable standard of living. By reducing housing benefit the government have reduced benefits overall. This may save the taxpayer money but it makes life even more difficult for people like me.

Also I have the added pressure of having to prove I'm ill on a regular basis. The DWP doesn't share information between it's own departments so I have to prove myself for ESA and DLA even though I give the same information to each.

You think it's ok for people to make arrangements to protect their inheritance and tbh I don't have a problem with that. I don't think anyone should have to spend their hard saved money on care when others don't but spare a thought for people like me at the other end of the social spectrum. We're not all claiming benefits to rip off the hard working taxpayer. Those people despite what the media says are few and
far between.