The 300,000 figure is a figure for the number of disabled people on housing waiting lists that has been extrapolated from replies by local authorities to a charity. Then transformed by the Guardian into something else by the addition of in unsuitable properties and implying they need adapted properties both of which are not known. And then used by you with the addition of unsafe implying they are in danger and stuck implying they have been waiting along time and will continue to be stuck waiting when those things are also not known.
Even the official 122,200 figure for medical and welfare is counting far more than just the disabled waiting for adapted properties and does not indicate how long they have been waiting. The number of disabled in unsafe and unsuitable accommodation who get the highest priority for moving and who are never the less stuck waiting I would expect is likely to be far lower than 122,200.
Your problem would appear to be that you own your own home so do not qualify. How that is any indication that the official figures on waiting lists of those who do qualify are not to be trusted I do not know. Especially when official figuers seemed to be fine when they were presented by the charity and Guardian to be 300,000 disabled waiting, but not fine when it is 122,200 people with medical or welfare need to move. It is not like 122,200 is that small a number and not like a small number would be a bad thing.
Rather obviously, the fact that there are people in my situation (I have come across many others) means that the likely number who need suitable accomodation is much higher than the government claims. I did not mention the Guardian. I have no reason to doubt the figures from Leonard Cheshire. I have been assessed as being in the most urgent medical need but I don't appear on any figures. Thanks to our politicians my health will continue to deteriorate unnecessarily as I am living in totally unsafe accommodation and have no other options re either moving or getting any adaptations (as the house will never meet my medical needs). This is happening all over the country. I have always done the "right thing". The politicians who claim that they look after such people are liars. The bottom line is that this a major issue whcih will only get worse.
I have no reason to doubt the figures from Leonard Cheshire.
To claim that they are in unsafe and unsuitable housing and stuck on the waiting list for adapted properties due to lack of adapted properties is pure speculation. And if you were not led astray by the Guradian implying things then you made all that speculation yourself. All the charity did as I have already pointed out with quotes and links was get a figure for disabled people on housing waiting lists no more.
Leonoard Cheshire Disability.
300,000 disabled people on housing waiting lists
We asked all 370 housing authorities in the UK how many disabled people are currently on their housing waiting list. 151 authorities provided a response, and we scaled this up on a pro-rata basis using the mean population percentage to reflect the entire country.
The charity sent freedom of information requests to 305 councils and 151 authorities responded, saying they had a total of 162,910 disabled people on their housing waiting lists. Extrapolating the results across the country would mean over 300,000.
The official figure for those on the housing waiting list with medical or welfare need to move is 122,200 and that figure includes those who are disabled who currently are in unsuitable properties and need to move to adapted properites, so the real figure for disabled in unsuitable housing on housing waiting lists to move to adapated property is going to be far lower than 122,200 the medical or welfare need total. Why this lower figure is objectionable while a higher figure is more eceptable I do not know. I would of thought a lower figure would be better, not that 122,200 is a particularly low figure.
To claim that they are in unsafe and unsuitable housing and stuck on the waiting list for adapted properties due to lack of adapted properties is pure speculation. And if you were not led astray by the Guradian implying things then you made all that speculation yourself. All the charity did as I have already pointed out with quotes and links was get a figure for disabled people on housing waiting lists no more.
Leonoard Cheshire Disability.
300,000 disabled people on housing waiting lists
We asked all 370 housing authorities in the UK how many disabled people are currently on their housing waiting list. 151 authorities provided a response, and we scaled this up on a pro-rata basis using the mean population percentage to reflect the entire country.
The charity sent freedom of information requests to 305 councils and 151 authorities responded, saying they had a total of 162,910 disabled people on their housing waiting lists. Extrapolating the results across the country would mean over 300,000.
The official figure for those on the housing waiting list with medical or welfare need to move is 122,200 and that figure includes those who are disabled who currently are in unsuitable properties and need to move to adapted properites, so the real figure for disabled in unsuitable housing on housing waiting lists to move to adapated property is going to be far lower than 122,200 the medical or welfare need total. Why this lower figure is objectionable while a higher figure is more eceptable I do not know. I would of thought a lower figure would be better, not that 122,200 is a particularly low figure.
So we can agree that this is a substantial problem that needs to be addressed and that some people are unfairly excluded from even being on the waiting list. You think that the figure is lower than that stated and I think it is higher. Time for me to move on as there is no point in going around in circles.
Since 1989, when private tenancies were deregulated to assured shorthold, housing benefit for private tenants has been restricted according to the amount of bedrooms a person is entitled to.
That legislation applies to both private and social housing and is aimed at preventing Landlords charging excessive rent.
SCHEDULE 2 EXCLUDED TENANCIES
1. A tenancy for which a rent officer has made a determination (other than an interim determination) within the 12 months ending on the date the rent officer received the application for a new determination (or a tenancy of the same dwelling on terms which are substantially the same, other than the term relating to the amount of rent, as the terms of that tenancy were at the time of the determination) unless since the earlier application for a determination was made–
(a)the number of occupiers of the dwelling has changed,
(b)there has been a substantial change in the condition of the dwelling (including the making of improvements) or the terms of the tenancy (other than a term relating to rent), or
(c)there has been a rent increase under a term of the tenancy which was in effect when the earlier application for the determination was made (and that determination was not made under paragraph 1(2) or 2(2) of Schedule 1 and any re-determination of that determination under Schedule 4 was not made under either of those sub-paragraphs as applied by Schedule 4), or under a term substantially the same as such a term.
2. An assured tenancy or an assured agricultural occupancy, where the landlord is a registered housing association within the meaning of the Housing Associations Act 1985(1), the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, unless the local authority states in the application for determinations that the circumstances set out in regulation 11(2)(a) or (c) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987(2) exist.
3. (1) A tenancy entered into before the relevant date where there is, current on that date, a benefit period (within the meaning of regulation 66 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987) relating to a claim for housing benefit in relation to the tenancy–
SO it's quite clear that this legislation, applied to both social and private rental properties, and that it's purpose was intended to ensure that the rent charged (and consequently any housing benefit claimed) was within reason for the size of the property.
there was the possibility to appeal, and it wasn't retrospective of the law coming into force, account was to be made for any alterations carried out to the property
unless and until a change of circumstances takes effect (within the meaning of regulation 68 of those Regulations), provided it takes effect after 16th April 1989, or
(b)until the benefit period ends (or, if it ends before 17th April 1989, the next benefit period ends).
2) In sub-paragraph (1) “relevant date” means–
(a)except were (b) applies, 1st April 1989;
(b)in the case of a tenancy where one of the occupiers of the dwelling immediately before 10 April 1989 is in receipt of income support under the Social Security Act 1986 and whose applicable amount immediately before that date is calculated in accordance with regulation 20 or regulation 71(1)(b) of, or paragraph 17 of Schedule 7 to, the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987(3), 10th April 1989.
4. A tenancy entered into before 15th January 1989.
5. A regulated tenancy within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977(4).
6. A housing association tenancy within the meaning of Part VI of that Act.
7. A protected occupancy or statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976(5)
8. A tenancy at a low rent within the meaning of Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954(6)
Just a few of things put into place to protect the poor and the disabled from any adverse effects of this act. None of which were put into place by the Tories, so yeah, it is EXACTLY like the Tories spare room fine, except where it's nothing like it, which is everywhere.
It seems a serial under achiever with a failing business seems to have so much time to get outraged at every opportunity.
Do you like commenting on this forum? would you like to continue to have the chance to vomit your vile personal abuse at every opportunity? I only ask because my cursor was hovering over the "alert" button for a second, something I have never done since joining this forum, but you are certainly pushing the boundaries.
It seems a serial under achiever with a failing business seems to have so much time to get outraged at every opportunity.
My commiserations that your business is failing. I hope that you will be able to find a good counsellor to help with your outrage and eventually a kindly employer that is willing to take a risk and take you on.
if you think OHG is wrong why don't you try discussing it in a proper way.
i wait with baited breath.
I honestly have never seen him "debate" anything, he turns up makes snide comments, about people who are less fortunate than him, or towards poor the disabled or the sick. or makes personal insults towards other forum members without knowing the first thing about them, and then runs away hiding behind his keyboard. I am truly surprised that he has lasted this long.
My commiserations that your business is failing. I hope that you will be able to find a good counsellor to help with your outrage and eventually a kindly employer that is willing to take a risk and take you on.
There are times when I really wish this forum had a "like" button.
It does when you have three of them, four until recently, two power chairs , two manual. And a walking frame. When you use a chair you need a lot of empty space to move and turn in as well, so you can't clutter the place too much.
I speak of someone who would support the policy had people been offered a place possibly twice and turned it down, to down size before being subject to this policy.
Many Lib Dem ministers including simon Hughes must have had reservations.
SO it's quite clear that this legislation, applied to both social and private rental properties, and that it's purpose was intended to ensure that the rent charged (and consequently any housing benefit claimed) was within reason for the size of the property.
there was the possibility to appeal, and it wasn't retrospective of the law coming into force, account was to be made for any alterations carried out to the property
Just a few of things put into place to protect the poor and the disabled from any adverse effects of this act. None of which were put into place by the Tories, so yeah, it is EXACTLY like the Tories spare room fine, except where it's nothing like it, which is everywhere.
I will reply to the longer post when I get a chance but just quickly on this one, clearly social tenancies are excluded from the requirement of rent officer determinations hence why the schedule is called "excluded tenancies"
Regardless of this, you must surely now accept having seen the regulation I quoted that the same size criteria that specifies the bedroom tax, have been a part of private tenants benefit claims since 1989.
Comments
Rather obviously, the fact that there are people in my situation (I have come across many others) means that the likely number who need suitable accomodation is much higher than the government claims. I did not mention the Guardian. I have no reason to doubt the figures from Leonard Cheshire. I have been assessed as being in the most urgent medical need but I don't appear on any figures. Thanks to our politicians my health will continue to deteriorate unnecessarily as I am living in totally unsafe accommodation and have no other options re either moving or getting any adaptations (as the house will never meet my medical needs). This is happening all over the country. I have always done the "right thing". The politicians who claim that they look after such people are liars. The bottom line is that this a major issue whcih will only get worse.
Leonoard Cheshire Disability.
300,000 disabled people on housing waiting lists
We asked all 370 housing authorities in the UK how many disabled people are currently on their housing waiting list. 151 authorities provided a response, and we scaled this up on a pro-rata basis using the mean population percentage to reflect the entire country.
The charity sent freedom of information requests to 305 councils and 151 authorities responded, saying they had a total of 162,910 disabled people on their housing waiting lists. Extrapolating the results across the country would mean over 300,000.
The official figure for those on the housing waiting list with medical or welfare need to move is 122,200 and that figure includes those who are disabled who currently are in unsuitable properties and need to move to adapted properites, so the real figure for disabled in unsuitable housing on housing waiting lists to move to adapated property is going to be far lower than 122,200 the medical or welfare need total. Why this lower figure is objectionable while a higher figure is more eceptable I do not know. I would of thought a lower figure would be better, not that 122,200 is a particularly low figure.
So we can agree that this is a substantial problem that needs to be addressed and that some people are unfairly excluded from even being on the waiting list. You think that the figure is lower than that stated and I think it is higher. Time for me to move on as there is no point in going around in circles.
That legislation applies to both private and social housing and is aimed at preventing Landlords charging excessive rent.
Also,
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/590/schedule/2/made
SO it's quite clear that this legislation, applied to both social and private rental properties, and that it's purpose was intended to ensure that the rent charged (and consequently any housing benefit claimed) was within reason for the size of the property.
there was the possibility to appeal, and it wasn't retrospective of the law coming into force, account was to be made for any alterations carried out to the property
Just a few of things put into place to protect the poor and the disabled from any adverse effects of this act.
None of which were put into place by the Tories, so yeah, it is EXACTLY like the Tories spare room fine, except where it's nothing like it, which is everywhere.
Do you like commenting on this forum? would you like to continue to have the chance to vomit your vile personal abuse at every opportunity? I only ask because my cursor was hovering over the "alert" button for a second, something I have never done since joining this forum, but you are certainly pushing the boundaries.
My commiserations that your business is failing. I hope that you will be able to find a good counsellor to help with your outrage and eventually a kindly employer that is willing to take a risk and take you on.
if you think OHG is wrong why don't you try discussing it in a proper way.
i wait with baited breath.
I honestly have never seen him "debate" anything, he turns up makes snide comments, about people who are less fortunate than him, or towards poor the disabled or the sick. or makes personal insults towards other forum members without knowing the first thing about them, and then runs away hiding behind his keyboard. I am truly surprised that he has lasted this long.
There are times when I really wish this forum had a "like" button.
It does when you have three of them, four until recently, two power chairs , two manual. And a walking frame. When you use a chair you need a lot of empty space to move and turn in as well, so you can't clutter the place too much.
I speak of someone who would support the policy had people been offered a place possibly twice and turned it down, to down size before being subject to this policy.
Many Lib Dem ministers including simon Hughes must have had reservations.
But preferred to keep their mouths shut. >:(>:(
I will reply to the longer post when I get a chance but just quickly on this one, clearly social tenancies are excluded from the requirement of rent officer determinations hence why the schedule is called "excluded tenancies"
Regardless of this, you must surely now accept having seen the regulation I quoted that the same size criteria that specifies the bedroom tax, have been a part of private tenants benefit claims since 1989.