I get high rate mobilty DLA but it does not cover alot of my mobilty cost in taxi fairs, my round trip to the hospital in the morning will be between £26/ £28 depending on how busy the traffic is then friday i have a GP visit that will be £12 round trip.
If you are in receipt of income based means tested benefits you can claim back travel costs for NHS appointments.
Well i dont blame local councils i blame the government, very simple bring in a country wide policy and say this is what we want, and you the councils sort it is your problems. The central government guidance is meaningless as all councils work in differant ways. The policy fails because it does not look at a persons whole needs only the bedroom needs which even fail on that side of things if a couple cannot share a bedroom for medical reasons that have already been proved by people trained in disabilty needs, which as far as i know HB staff are not trained in this field
The local authorities are not allocating all their DHP funding, and are returning much of it to central government. So I do think local government are to blame if people who are vulnerable and genuinely unable to pay are facing hardship.
The same case can be made for council tax benefit being replaced by council tax reduction, with local authorities able to design their own schemes along government guidelines.
And with much of the central government social fund being replaced by local authority schemes, with local authorities desiging their own eligibility criteria along government guidelines.
And has been the case for ages with social care provision, with what to provide and what if anything to charge and who to charge being down to the local authority or local nhs trust.
We have local as well as national government and increasingly the national government is making cuts and passing the buck to local government to manage the reductions in spending, and giving local government responsiblity for protecting the vulnerable.
If you are in receipt of income based means tested benefits you can claim back travel costs for NHS appointments.
The local authorities are not allocating all their DHP funding, and are returning much of it to central government. So I do think local government are to blame if people who are vulnerable and genuinely unable to pay are facing hardship.
The same case can be made for council tax benefit being replaced by council tax reduction, with local authorities able to design their own schemes along government guidelines.
And with much of the central government social fund being replaced by local authority schemes, with local authorities desiging their own eligibility criteria along government guidelines.
And has been the case for ages with social care provision, with what to provide and what if anything to charge and who to charge being down to the local authority or local nhs trust.
We have local as well as national government and increasingly the national government is making cuts and passing the buck to local government to manage the reductions in spending, and giving local government r foprotecting the vulnerable.
And that is were it is all going to go wrong and fail, the councils are expected to deliver more services and responsiblity for the vulnerble but have had massive budget cuts, so are already stuggling the socail care budget was took the biggest hit. We already have people left in hospital who dont need to be there, but shortage of staff and money means no after care service to be able to leave hospital so they must stay in hospital taking a bed up. The scrapping of the ILF and not ring fenceing the money means the risk of people ending up in residental care is very high, so lossing thier independence
Needed neccesities are being able to live as normal life and do normal everyday things, as someone without disabilites, it does not mean living a basic life only as being able to afford food and heating, being able to get out of the house and meet people socially is a normal everyday thing that most people can do.
Relative poverty is already a joke as a measure as someone with a household income of below 60% of the mean average can be quite well off as far as material provision of needs. I had thought that material deprivation still meant something that it actually measured what I would call real poverty. People going without adequate shelter, home unfit for human habitation, or without heating or short of food or wearing worn out clothes and shoes unable to afford to replace clothes or shoes, etc; It simply surprises me that even material deprivateion in the UK counts things like going out and going on holiday. And it surpises me that materal deprivation is a relative measure. So there will always be people in material deprivation in the UK because it is a relative to other people, not a lack of a neccisity of life.
While there are those in the UK undoubtly living in real poverty, it would be nice if the government stats actually measured real poverty and the government and various charities wanted to tackle it as a prioritty, It seems to me the government instead focuses on getting those close to the threshold over it so they no longer count instead of focusing on those far below who are in real hardship and need of help, and charities seem to exaggerate the amount of people in poverty and the level of poverty of many, instead of focusing on helping those in real hardship.
Sorry but it still is a penalty, for the disabled in adapted properties. As the chance of being able to down size is very low, lower than any other group of people so it is a form of punishment for being disabled, it would have made alot more sense to have tried to have worked out what should be classed as adapted properties and made exempt., as these people are never likely to be able to move. I get high rate mobilty DLA but it does not cover alot of my mobilty cost in taxi fairs, my round trip to the hospital in the morning will be between £26/ £28 depending on how busy the traffic is then friday i have a GP visit that will be £12 round trip. Well i dont blame local councils i blame the government, very simple bring in a country wide policy and say this is what we want, and you the councils sort it is your problems. The central government guidance is meaningless as all councils work in differant ways. The policy fails because it does not look at a persons whole needs only the bedroom needs which even fail on that side of things if a couple cannot share a bedroom for medical reasons that have already been proved by people trained in disabilty needs, which as far as i know HB staff are not trained in this field
Very true, Tim. The "bedroom tax" certainly does have a disproportionately adverse effect on disabled people.
On DHP's, it is interesting to note that in 2013/14 LA's in Great Britain spent 102% of the money that they were given (94% in England, 106% in Wales and 176% in Scotland). With respect to what they call the removal of the spare room subsidy, the amount allocated was £55m but LA's actually allocated £80.8m to alleviate some of the effects of this unfair policy.
So really the government should demolish large numbers of three bedroom houses and replace them with one and two bedroom ones.
No because they all will be needed, but smaller ones are needed as well. You can be classed as having more bedrooms than needed but only on paper by a rule change
So according to Newsnight its neither a tax nor a penalty.
It's a removal of the spare room subsidy.
Nice try, it's certainly not a tax, nor is it a "subsidy" as housing benefit is not, nor has it ever been, paid by the room, you don't get "extra" for another room spare or otherwise, we have an upstairs and a downstairs toilet, but we don't get 'extra' HB because we have 2 toilets, even though we only "need" one, and could easily manage with only one,
do the "hard working tax payers" (we both work by the way, but as well as being spare room criminals we are also low paid criminals) object to paying for our "extra" toilet? nope, but then they haven't been instructed to, just as no one objected to people having a "spare" room, until the Tories instructed them to,
The under occupancy penalty does exist, it's what the actual legislation is called, check out the official UK parliament web site, and then check the definition of "penalty" it's a fine or a punishment for law or rule breaking,
there is no such thing as "the spare room subsidy" not in any legal documentation, not on the housing benefit application form nor the housing benefit act,
it was a thing invented by the Tories and then removed by the Tories, they invented it to counter the name "bedroom tax" because of all of it's connotations with the hated poll tax, and we all know how well that went for them.
but they could hardly respond by saying "it's not a tax it's a penalty" now could they?
so they planted the idea in the minds of the ever 'eager spiteful' that thousands and thousands of benefit scroungers are demanding that the "decent" hard working tax payers "subsidise" their 'spare' rooms, and my didn't it work well?
Not difficult I suppose coming on the back of a few years of anti benefit claimant propaganda,
the fact that every other political party, including the BNP have said they would scrap it if/when they came to power, and it's ONLY the Tories who insist on keeping it, (even their coalition partners have said they will have it's repeal in their manifesto) should be all anyone needs to know about this vile Tory party supported only, anti poor legislation.
4.5% have downsized.
The other 95.5% obviously have been able to afford to stay.
Depends on your definition of "afford". Many of them are going into arrears, others are going into debt, others are cutting their optional spending like food & heating.
Depends on your definition of "afford". Many of them are going into arrears, others are going into debt, others are cutting their optional spending like food & heating.
Many were going into arrears long before last year. What about optional spending on ****, booze and smartphones?
Many were going into arrears long before last year. What about optional spending on ****, booze and smartphones?
And thousands and thousands had no arrears before this policy, and what about the optional spending of the bedroom penalty or food or heating. Punishment because of lack of being able to down size was never a good or fair idea. nobody should face a cut in state help if there was no suitable smaller property available which was always the fair way to go
On DHP's, it is interesting to note that in 2013/14 LA's in Great Britain spent 102% of the money that they were given (94% in England, 106% in Wales and 176% in Scotland). With respect to what they call the removal of the spare room subsidy, the amount allocated was £55m but LA's actually allocated £80.8m to alleviate some of the effects of this unfair policy.
2013/14
Total available central government funding for DHP was £160 million allocated to LHA plus an additional £20 million available for a total of £180 million
To this LHA were able to add their own funds up to a total of two and a half times central government funding for a grand total of up to £450 million.
Actual total DHPspending was £176,393,889
Out of the 360 LA, 127 spent more than their central government allocation, of which 86 requested additional funding out of the £20 million available from central government and £12.9 million was allocated, leaving £7.1 million of the additional available funding unspent.
240 out of 380 LAs across Great Britain under-spent by £13,285,430 against the available government contribution. This £13,285,430 of allocated money unspent is returned to the central government
Total central government funding for DHP that was unspent £20,385,430
With respect to spare room subsidy
Central government allocation specifically ear marked for this was £35 million with an additional £20 million available, for at total of £55 million.
LA were are able to add their own funds up to two and a half times central government funding, if I do this for the spare room subsidy funding in isolation it gives a grand total of up to £137.5 million
Actual DHP spending for the spare room subsidy totaled £80,805,904
And of the £20 million additional funds available from central government only £12.9 million was allocated leaving £7.1 million of available additional central government funds for DHP in relation to the spare room subisdy unspent.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322455/use-of-discretionary-housing-payments-june-2014.pdf
2013/14
Total available central government funding for DHP was £160 million allocated to LHA plus an additional £20 million available for a total of £180 million
To this LHA were able to add their own funds up to a total of two and a half times central government funding for a grand total of up to £450 million
Actual total DHPspending was £176,393,889
Out of the 360 LA, 127 spent more than their central government allocation, of which 86 requested additional funding out of the £20 million available from central government and £12.9 million was allocated, leaving £7.1 million unspent.
With respect to spare room subsidy
Central government allocation specifically ear marked for this was £35 million with an additional £20 million available, for at total of £55 million.
LA were are able to add their own funds up to two and a half times central government funding for a grand total of up to £137.5 million
Actual DHP spending for the spare room subsidy totaled £80,805,904
And of the £20 million additional funds available from central government only £12.9 million was allocated leaving £7.1 million of available central government funds for DHP in relation to the spare room subisdy unspent.
The point is DHPs were alway meant as a short term fix, but if there is no were for people to downsize too how can the DHP be a short term fix, and there never has been a intention for DHPs to be a long term thing for people effected by the bedroom penalty. The whole idea was not to help people downsize because if everyone was in the right size housing then there would be no saving to the HB bill anyway. This whole policy was not about helping people and accomadtion it was nothing more than to try to save money in the cheapest form of housing there is, pity the government has not spent as much time and money dealing with the mass problems in the private sector.
And thousands and thousands had no arrears before this policy, and what about the optional spending of the bedroom penalty or food or heating. Punishment because of lack of being able to down size was never a good or fair idea. nobody should face a cut in state help if there was no suitable smaller property available which was always the fair way to go
You could have a million empty smaller properties and they still wouldn't have moved. There would be no reason for them to do so.
If the number in arrears was increasing before last year then any further increase will at least in part, be due to the previous trend and not anything new. At a 14% reduction it would be 7 months before they were 1 full month behind in their rent.
BBC social affairs correspondent Michael Buchanan said the 59% figure refers specifically to people's inability to pay the additional rent - regardless of whether they were in arrears before the changes.
However, the DWP highlighted a separate survey carried out by the National Housing Federation before the change came into effect which found 55% of all social housing tenants of working age on housing benefit already had some form of arrears.
An increase from 55% to 59% isn't that large for what is alleged to be a major problem.
You could have a million empty smaller properties and they still wouldn't have moved. There would be no reason for them to do so.
If the number in arrears was increasing before last year then any further increase will at least in part, be due to the previous trend and not anything new. At a 14% reduction it would be 7 months before they were 1 full month behind in their rent.
An increase from 55% to 59% isn't that large for what is alleged to be a major problem.
Well we will not know if people will not move untill that is tried, and only charge people if they refuse a smaller place, why punish people if they cannot move because of bad planing of governments and councils over the years. Trying to shift the blame onto the tenants is the wrong way forward
the fact that every other political party, including the BNP have said they would scrap it if/when they came to power, and it's ONLY the Tories who insist on keeping it, (even their coalition partners have said they will have it's repeal in their manifesto) should be all anyone needs to know about this vile Tory party supported only, anti poor legislation.
And yet they still have more than 30% of the vote, so where is their support coming from?
The point is DHPs were alway meant as a short term fix, but if there is no were for people to downsize too how can the DHP be a short term fix, and there never has been a intention for DHPs to be a long term thing for people effected by the bedroom penalty.
Central government funding for DHP for spare room subsidy in relation to the disabled is on going it does not look like it is just intended as a short term fix.
Well we will not know if people will not move untill that is tried, and only charge people if they refuse a smaller place, why punish people if they cannot move because of bad planing of governments and councils over the years. Trying to shift the blame onto the tenants is the wrong way forward
The bad planning was to allow social tenants to get away with it for so long. Nobody could make plans for smaller housing because the demand was kept artificially low by people not being pressured in any way to downsize.
The bad planning was to allow social tenants to get away with it for so long. Nobody could make plans for smaller housing because the demand was kept artificially low by people not being pressured in any way to downsize.
And then you get the NIMBY's who start complaining whenever anyone suggest building any new houses close to them or not
The bad planning was to allow social tenants to get away with it for so long. Nobody could make plans for smaller housing because the demand was kept artificially low by people not being pressured in any way to downsize.
It's probably worth noting that the biggest block is pensioners living in much larger accommodation than they need. The reason they are not affected by the bedroom tax is that they vote and the government doesn't wish to offend them.
The bad planning was to allow social tenants to get away with it for so long. Nobody could make plans for smaller housing because the demand was kept artificially low by people not being pressured in any way to downsize.
Sorry governments and councils plan building of council housing, not the teanants. There has been no proper planing or building for years, so you now have a policy that is designed to pressure people into moving, but is flawed straight away by lack of right size housing, and even now the building of 1 bedroom places is at a 20 year all time low,
Comments
The local authorities are not allocating all their DHP funding, and are returning much of it to central government. So I do think local government are to blame if people who are vulnerable and genuinely unable to pay are facing hardship.
The same case can be made for council tax benefit being replaced by council tax reduction, with local authorities able to design their own schemes along government guidelines.
And with much of the central government social fund being replaced by local authority schemes, with local authorities desiging their own eligibility criteria along government guidelines.
And has been the case for ages with social care provision, with what to provide and what if anything to charge and who to charge being down to the local authority or local nhs trust.
We have local as well as national government and increasingly the national government is making cuts and passing the buck to local government to manage the reductions in spending, and giving local government responsiblity for protecting the vulnerable.
While there are those in the UK undoubtly living in real poverty, it would be nice if the government stats actually measured real poverty and the government and various charities wanted to tackle it as a prioritty, It seems to me the government instead focuses on getting those close to the threshold over it so they no longer count instead of focusing on those far below who are in real hardship and need of help, and charities seem to exaggerate the amount of people in poverty and the level of poverty of many, instead of focusing on helping those in real hardship.
The other 95.5% obviously have been able to afford to stay.
Very true, Tim. The "bedroom tax" certainly does have a disproportionately adverse effect on disabled people.
On DHP's, it is interesting to note that in 2013/14 LA's in Great Britain spent 102% of the money that they were given (94% in England, 106% in Wales and 176% in Scotland). With respect to what they call the removal of the spare room subsidy, the amount allocated was £55m but LA's actually allocated £80.8m to alleviate some of the effects of this unfair policy.
DHP, the government paying people to stay in thier home with a spare room,
It's a removal of the spare room subsidy.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbusiness%2Fnews%2F2013%2Ffebruary%2Fmps-debate-housing-benefit-and-the-under-occupancy-penalty%2F&ei=nfzGU4b2HsaO7Aam9YGQAg&usg=AFQjCNF9d8FMXp_Hw9RdMc6WbNwMAsy4lA&bvm=bv.71126742,d.ZGU&cad=rja. MPs debated housing benefit and the under-occupancy penalty on Wednesday 27 February 2013 in the House of Commons. The subject of the debate was chosen by Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party. As you can see it is listed on as the under-occupancy-penalty. As listed on parliaments own website
No because they all will be needed, but smaller ones are needed as well. You can be classed as having more bedrooms than needed but only on paper by a rule change
Nice try, it's certainly not a tax, nor is it a "subsidy" as housing benefit is not, nor has it ever been, paid by the room, you don't get "extra" for another room spare or otherwise, we have an upstairs and a downstairs toilet, but we don't get 'extra' HB because we have 2 toilets, even though we only "need" one, and could easily manage with only one,
do the "hard working tax payers" (we both work by the way, but as well as being spare room criminals we are also low paid criminals) object to paying for our "extra" toilet? nope, but then they haven't been instructed to, just as no one objected to people having a "spare" room, until the Tories instructed them to,
The under occupancy penalty does exist, it's what the actual legislation is called, check out the official UK parliament web site, and then check the definition of "penalty" it's a fine or a punishment for law or rule breaking,
there is no such thing as "the spare room subsidy" not in any legal documentation, not on the housing benefit application form nor the housing benefit act,
it was a thing invented by the Tories and then removed by the Tories, they invented it to counter the name "bedroom tax" because of all of it's connotations with the hated poll tax, and we all know how well that went for them.
but they could hardly respond by saying "it's not a tax it's a penalty" now could they?
so they planted the idea in the minds of the ever 'eager spiteful' that thousands and thousands of benefit scroungers are demanding that the "decent" hard working tax payers "subsidise" their 'spare' rooms, and my didn't it work well?
Not difficult I suppose coming on the back of a few years of anti benefit claimant propaganda,
the fact that every other political party, including the BNP have said they would scrap it if/when they came to power, and it's ONLY the Tories who insist on keeping it, (even their coalition partners have said they will have it's repeal in their manifesto) should be all anyone needs to know about this vile Tory party supported only, anti poor legislation.
And thousands and thousands had no arrears before this policy, and what about the optional spending of the bedroom penalty or food or heating. Punishment because of lack of being able to down size was never a good or fair idea. nobody should face a cut in state help if there was no suitable smaller property available which was always the fair way to go
Total available central government funding for DHP was £160 million allocated to LHA plus an additional £20 million available for a total of £180 million
To this LHA were able to add their own funds up to a total of two and a half times central government funding for a grand total of up to £450 million.
Actual total DHPspending was £176,393,889
Out of the 360 LA, 127 spent more than their central government allocation, of which 86 requested additional funding out of the £20 million available from central government and £12.9 million was allocated, leaving £7.1 million of the additional available funding unspent.
240 out of 380 LAs across Great Britain under-spent by £13,285,430 against the available government contribution. This £13,285,430 of allocated money unspent is returned to the central government
Total central government funding for DHP that was unspent £20,385,430
With respect to spare room subsidy
Central government allocation specifically ear marked for this was £35 million with an additional £20 million available, for at total of £55 million.
LA were are able to add their own funds up to two and a half times central government funding, if I do this for the spare room subsidy funding in isolation it gives a grand total of up to £137.5 million
Actual DHP spending for the spare room subsidy totaled £80,805,904
And of the £20 million additional funds available from central government only £12.9 million was allocated leaving £7.1 million of available additional central government funds for DHP in relation to the spare room subisdy unspent.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322455/use-of-discretionary-housing-payments-june-2014.pdf
If the number in arrears was increasing before last year then any further increase will at least in part, be due to the previous trend and not anything new. At a 14% reduction it would be 7 months before they were 1 full month behind in their rent. An increase from 55% to 59% isn't that large for what is alleged to be a major problem.
Well we will not know if people will not move untill that is tried, and only charge people if they refuse a smaller place, why punish people if they cannot move because of bad planing of governments and councils over the years. Trying to shift the blame onto the tenants is the wrong way forward
And yet they still have more than 30% of the vote, so where is their support coming from?
Central government funding for DHP for spare room subsidy in relation to the disabled is on going it does not look like it is just intended as a short term fix.
And then you get the NIMBY's who start complaining whenever anyone suggest building any new houses close to them or not
It's probably worth noting that the biggest block is pensioners living in much larger accommodation than they need. The reason they are not affected by the bedroom tax is that they vote and the government doesn't wish to offend them.