Vocal Voices

Of course it did. It was based on Human and Equality rights.

In my mind to go down that route was about as stupid as things get. A misuse of poor legislation via a blanket approach was never going to work.

Having a spare bedroom is not a human or equality right no matter who you are. Having one for practical reasons when you are disabled, such a carer staying over, could be. The appeal should have been based on the one-size-fits-all aspect of the legislation and should have argued for the need to assess each application on the requirements of each individual. Had that happened there might have been a chance of success.

The danger now is that the door has been firmly closed on the issue to the detriment of many disabled people.

We (as in my work) are currently lobbying for them to make changes to the bedroom tax in rural areas.

My boss was at something at the house of lords last week and it was mentioned there that in towns/villages of less than 3000 residents the bedroom tax was not feasible due to the lack of houses in the area.

I think that's the problem in many areas Deb. It's all very well the authorities saying that someone doesn't need an extra bedroom - there are not many single bedroom council properties round here and a lot of those that there are tend to be in dog-rough areas.
eta - We've been looking on line for a council property for my in-laws, and some of the rents have made my jaw drop. Over £90 a week? Especially when some accomodation is on crime ridden sink estates?

I think my daughter will be hoping granddaughter doesn't want to leave home.

Tell 'em nowt, Rododaughter!

I saw the couple concerned on BBC Breakfast this morning - they so obviously need that second bedroom, how can it be classed as 'spare'?

debih wrote:We (as in my work) are currently lobbying for them to make changes to the bedroom tax in rural areas.

My boss was at something at the house of lords last week and it was mentioned there that in towns/villages of less than 3000 residents the bedroom tax was not feasible due to the lack of houses in the area.

Debih, that is a far more persuasive argument against the government's broad-brush legislation than going for Human Rights. IMO that might have had some chance of getting the government to think again as it creates a Catch 22 from which there is no escape.

It is a daft rule.

And it doesn't affect the over 60's who in one way are the worst culprits (by no fault of their own).

They have their 3 bedroom social housing house and have lived there for years, bringing up their families and then the children leave home and they are left in a house with two spare bedrooms.

it is not their fault and they are entitled to live in the house that they have been in for years - they may want to downsize but there are no smaller properties available to them. But there are young families waiting for this size of house.

What the government should be concentrating on is building more retirement accommodation so that older people can easily downsize, leaving the family houses available for families.

We (as in work) are being affected by it - we provide rural houses in village locations so we have very small schemes with perhaps only 4 social housing houses in one small village. Sometimes we aim the schemes at the over 55's, sometimes at young families - it all depends what the housing needs surveys tell us. The properties have to go to people with a local connection to the village and the more in need you are the further up the list you go.

We have families with two children living in 3 bedroom houses (3rd bedrooms are usually very small with the second bedroom not that much bigger) who are no longer entitled to the allowance for 3 bedrooms because although their children are a boy and a girl they are deemed young enough to share. So they have to move. They can't find anywhere else in the village (private rents too high, social housing only have 3 bedroom houses, for which they are no longer eligible) so they have to move away. Two years later they need a 3 bedroom house because the children are now deemed to old to share but can't get one back in the village where they grew up because there are only 4 and they are all taken!!!!

Bloody ridiculous situation.

When my grandmother died, just before I was 11, we had to move from that council house. We were moved to what had been built as a 'model', an experiment.
It was only a small road, a cul-de-sac, in a village. The houses were a mixture of 2 and 3-bedrooms, and had the larger gardens. One child, 2-bed; 2 or 3 children, 3-bed. No-one there had more.
But at the other end of the road, where the gardens narrowed, there were 6 small 2-bed bungalows and two little 2-storey blocks of single bedroom flats.
So, once your children had moved out, you could ask (or were told) to be put on the waiting list for one of the bungalows. From there, or directly from a house, if one partner died, you could move to a flat. It was perfect, no-one had to leave all the people they'd known for years, everyone had what they wanted/needed, and even as children we would get to know and check on the older people in the flats.

The sale of council houses, which of course benefited so many, my parents included, b*ggered up the system completely.

Di we had similar where I grew up - we lived in a 3 bed council house (2 and a boxroom really) but there were 1 and 2 bed bungalows and flats close by, for the retired.......They need to start building the same now.