240 people wrongly charged in Bradford bedroom tax 'fiasco'

240 people wrongly charged in Bradford bedroom tax 'fiasco'

240 people wrongly charged in Bradford bedroom tax 'fiasco'

First published in News Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , Parliamentary Correspondent

At least 240 people in Bradford have been unlawfully charged the ‘bedroom tax’ after a Government blunder.

They are residents who have lived in the same local council or housing association property since 1996 – making them exempt from the controversial measure.

But they have wrongly been deducted hundreds of pounds of their housing benefit, because they were deemed to have spare bedrooms.

All must now be refunded, after the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) admitted tenants in the same home for more than 17 years should not have been hit.

Bradford Council is scrambling to arrange refunds for all 240 tenants, to clear up a mess not of its making – and may yet find more people affected.

A spokesman said: “So far, 240 people in the Bradford District have been discovered to have had the charge wrongly applied. That figure may increase as more come to light.

“We will be revising claims to April 1 last year and sending out arrears of housing benefit. We expect it will take up to two weeks to amend the claims.”

At Westminster, Labour seized on the figures to warn the bedroom tax – which it has vowed to axe if it wins back power – had become “farce”.

And it accused ministers of misleading people about the blunder, having claimed only 5,000 residents would be hit nationwide, when the real figure was up to 50,000.

However, the party’s bid to prevent the Government closing the loophole – to ensure no one else escapes the clampdown – was easily defeated in the Commons.

Chris Bryant, Labour’s welfare spokesman, said: “The bedroom tax has been a fiasco from start to finish and now the Government has been caught out trying to downplay how many people are exempted by it.

“At this rate the total will be nearly 50,000 households, each of them overcharged by an average of £640. That’s £3,072,000 that will have to be repaid.

“This would be a farce if it weren't for the upset this has caused many vulnerable families and the huge cost to taxpayers.”

The removal of the ‘spare room subsidy’ – the Government’s term – cuts housing benefit by 14 per cent for one extra bedroom and 25 per cent where there are two. Ministers say the policy will save £500m.

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:50am Thu 27 Feb 14

Andy2010 says...

*awaits Rollies comments...something along the lines of evil Tories...vulnerable people....the poor...blah blah blah*
*awaits Rollies comments...something along the lines of evil Tories...vulnerable people....the poor...blah blah blah* Andy2010
  • Score: -1

8:55am Thu 27 Feb 14

mad matt says...

Why is it that these types of "mistakes" always seem to favour the powers that be, at a cost to the public who are not able to fight back?
Shoddy administration I guess.
Why is it that these types of "mistakes" always seem to favour the powers that be, at a cost to the public who are not able to fight back? Shoddy administration I guess. mad matt
  • Score: 3

9:15am Thu 27 Feb 14

Andy2010 says...

mad matt wrote:
Why is it that these types of "mistakes" always seem to favour the powers that be, at a cost to the public who are not able to fight back?
Shoddy administration I guess.
They dont

Like for example last year nearly £80 million was overpaid in tax credits
[quote][p][bold]mad matt[/bold] wrote: Why is it that these types of "mistakes" always seem to favour the powers that be, at a cost to the public who are not able to fight back? Shoddy administration I guess.[/p][/quote]They dont Like for example last year nearly £80 million was overpaid in tax credits Andy2010
  • Score: 1

9:18am Thu 27 Feb 14

pellethead says...

Andy2010 wrote:
mad matt wrote:
Why is it that these types of "mistakes" always seem to favour the powers that be, at a cost to the public who are not able to fight back?
Shoddy administration I guess.
They dont

Like for example last year nearly £80 million was overpaid in tax credits
and around £15 BILLION benefits went unclaimed.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mad matt[/bold] wrote: Why is it that these types of "mistakes" always seem to favour the powers that be, at a cost to the public who are not able to fight back? Shoddy administration I guess.[/p][/quote]They dont Like for example last year nearly £80 million was overpaid in tax credits[/p][/quote]and around £15 BILLION benefits went unclaimed. pellethead
  • Score: 7

9:50am Thu 27 Feb 14

Grumpygirl says...

This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality
This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality Grumpygirl
  • Score: 5

9:55am Thu 27 Feb 14

johnhem says...

they should get a small compensation payment for the severe distress this will have caused. imagine thinking through no fault of your own you could have ended up homeless.
this is a highly emotive subject and should not have come into being until there were sufficient smaller houses for people to change to, and in the area where they live now, not breaking up families that chose to live close to each other.
chain st would have been ideal for a lot of single people if done up properly, especially those working in town. instead they just pulled them down and rebuilt, how many of those are one and two bed houses/flats?
they should get a small compensation payment for the severe distress this will have caused. imagine thinking through no fault of your own you could have ended up homeless. this is a highly emotive subject and should not have come into being until there were sufficient smaller houses for people to change to, and in the area where they live now, not breaking up families that chose to live close to each other. chain st would have been ideal for a lot of single people if done up properly, especially those working in town. instead they just pulled them down and rebuilt, how many of those are one and two bed houses/flats? johnhem
  • Score: 4

9:55am Thu 27 Feb 14

Andy2010 says...

Grumpygirl wrote:
This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality
lol
[quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality[/p][/quote]lol Andy2010
  • Score: -1

10:01am Thu 27 Feb 14

yezboss says...

Do LIz and Phil pay it, they have a few spare beds, oh no silly me, they have been there too long? Aren't there others in Royalty who are in 'council houses' though? Are they affected?
Do LIz and Phil pay it, they have a few spare beds, oh no silly me, they have been there too long? Aren't there others in Royalty who are in 'council houses' though? Are they affected? yezboss
  • Score: -1

10:44am Thu 27 Feb 14

OLDLAD says...

Andy2010 wrote:
Grumpygirl wrote:
This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality
lol
Bedroom tax first muted by Liabour, ATOS instigated by Liabour, benefit cap supported by liabour. All parties are the same, born liars.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality[/p][/quote]lol[/p][/quote]Bedroom tax first muted by Liabour, ATOS instigated by Liabour, benefit cap supported by liabour. All parties are the same, born liars. OLDLAD
  • Score: 5

11:10am Thu 27 Feb 14

linebacker2 says...

Grumpygirl wrote:
This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality
Benefit cap only applies to those receiving more than average wage in benefits - how can someone be on above average wage AND be poor?

Labour created a client state of people on benefits and in public sector employment for electoral reasons - Coalition is quite rightly undoing this..
[quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality[/p][/quote]Benefit cap only applies to those receiving more than average wage in benefits - how can someone be on above average wage AND be poor? Labour created a client state of people on benefits and in public sector employment for electoral reasons - Coalition is quite rightly undoing this.. linebacker2
  • Score: 11

12:59pm Thu 27 Feb 14

angry bradfordian says...

Has someone on the T&A been affected by this because the story reads extremely politically biased. The days of a politically neutral local paper seem to have passed.

The last paragraph is awful:
The removal of the ‘spare room subsidy’ – the Government’s term

Why is this in apostrophes? It's not the 'government's term' it's the name of the Bill! If they're going to put this explanation in should also say 'the bedroom tax' is a Labour term.

Still doesn't stop this being an appallingly badly implemented policy though.....
Has someone on the T&A been affected by this because the story reads extremely politically biased. The days of a politically neutral local paper seem to have passed. The last paragraph is awful: The removal of the ‘spare room subsidy’ – the Government’s term Why is this in apostrophes? It's not the 'government's term' it's the name of the Bill! If they're going to put this explanation in should also say 'the bedroom tax' is a Labour term. Still doesn't stop this being an appallingly badly implemented policy though..... angry bradfordian
  • Score: 2

1:09pm Thu 27 Feb 14

bmt1980 says...

linebacker2 wrote:
Grumpygirl wrote: This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality
Benefit cap only applies to those receiving more than average wage in benefits - how can someone be on above average wage AND be poor? Labour created a client state of people on benefits and in public sector employment for electoral reasons - Coalition is quite rightly undoing this..
Very well said! Should simply be thankful of the free money they receive to live in a house bigger than they need anyway! Not moaning when the free money is being cut back or capped.
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality[/p][/quote]Benefit cap only applies to those receiving more than average wage in benefits - how can someone be on above average wage AND be poor? Labour created a client state of people on benefits and in public sector employment for electoral reasons - Coalition is quite rightly undoing this..[/p][/quote]Very well said! Should simply be thankful of the free money they receive to live in a house bigger than they need anyway! Not moaning when the free money is being cut back or capped. bmt1980
  • Score: 15

1:19pm Thu 27 Feb 14

dellorri says...

linebacker2 wrote:
Grumpygirl wrote:
This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality
Benefit cap only applies to those receiving more than average wage in benefits - how can someone be on above average wage AND be poor?

Labour created a client state of people on benefits and in public sector employment for electoral reasons - Coalition is quite rightly undoing this..
Oh the naivety of some people, The benefit cap applies to those as you say receiving more than £26,000 per annum in benefits, let's see now, how many are there, oh yes as IDS said in the house the other day, "341 families have been affected by the benefit cap, 17 in the Isle of Wight.", That's 341 out of the whole country mind you, doesn't seem a huge amount to me, what about you? Let's face it the benefit cap in reality was put in place to combat the huge rents being asked by private landlords in the London area, sometimes £500-£750 a week.. These were the people most likely to be affected. Or those with 10 or more children as you often see quoted in rags like the Daily Heil, Well according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Who are a respected charity who perform studies for the government among others, there are less than 0.01% of families of this size in the country, so once again not that many.
Next, LAbour created benefits dependency? Sorry it wen't back further than that, to Mrs. Thatcher's great triumph of pit closures, when she threw 800,000 miners on the scrapheap along with associated industries and the towns that thrived on their business. In order to massage the unemployment figures down, then as today, the miners were enccouraged to "Go on the sick." With "Black lung" or "bad backs", thus being on incapacity benefits and not on the dole figures of the day. Then came the master stroke..............
.......
She introduced "The Right To Buy" scheme, funnily enough, 65% of the housing stock that was sold, eventually ended up being owned by a property consortium, that included as a director Sir Ian Gow, The then Minister of Housing, it is now run by his son Mark Gow and his wife, and they rent the properties back to the local authorities the houses are situated in at double the going rate.
Finally if you want to talk about people getting housing benefit, the only people who ultimately get housing benefit, are the landlords, be they private or social, the tenants only get the privilege of having somewhere to live. If you feel housing benefit is too high, Then rents should be capped, it's not the tenants fault the landlord sets the rate of rent they don't.
After all one of the most well known landlords getting payments in housing benefit from local authorities for tenants in houses on her estates is............ H.M. The Queen.
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality[/p][/quote]Benefit cap only applies to those receiving more than average wage in benefits - how can someone be on above average wage AND be poor? Labour created a client state of people on benefits and in public sector employment for electoral reasons - Coalition is quite rightly undoing this..[/p][/quote]Oh the naivety of some people, The benefit cap applies to those as you say receiving more than £26,000 per annum in benefits, let's see now, how many are there, oh yes as IDS said in the house the other day, "341 families have been affected by the benefit cap, 17 in the Isle of Wight.", That's 341 out of the whole country mind you, doesn't seem a huge amount to me, what about you? Let's face it the benefit cap in reality was put in place to combat the huge rents being asked by private landlords in the London area, sometimes £500-£750 a week.. These were the people most likely to be affected. Or those with 10 or more children as you often see quoted in rags like the Daily Heil, Well according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Who are a respected charity who perform studies for the government among others, there are less than 0.01% of families of this size in the country, so once again not that many. Next, LAbour created benefits dependency? Sorry it wen't back further than that, to Mrs. Thatcher's great triumph of pit closures, when she threw 800,000 miners on the scrapheap along with associated industries and the towns that thrived on their business. In order to massage the unemployment figures down, then as today, the miners were enccouraged to "Go on the sick." With "Black lung" or "bad backs", thus being on incapacity benefits and not on the dole figures of the day. Then came the master stroke.............. ....... She introduced "The Right To Buy" scheme, funnily enough, 65% of the housing stock that was sold, eventually ended up being owned by a property consortium, that included as a director Sir Ian Gow, The then Minister of Housing, it is now run by his son Mark Gow and his wife, and they rent the properties back to the local authorities the houses are situated in at double the going rate. Finally if you want to talk about people getting housing benefit, the only people who ultimately get housing benefit, are the landlords, be they private or social, the tenants only get the privilege of having somewhere to live. If you feel housing benefit is too high, Then rents should be capped, it's not the tenants fault the landlord sets the rate of rent they don't. After all one of the most well known landlords getting payments in housing benefit from local authorities for tenants in houses on her estates is............ H.M. The Queen. dellorri
  • Score: 2

3:53pm Thu 27 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
*awaits Rollies comments...something along the lines of evil Tories...vulnerable people....the poor...blah blah blah*
No I won't bother I'll just say incompetent Tories messing with things they don't understand for the sake of an ideological hatred of those less well off. I think that about covers it. Are there any policies they have got right and that were driven by anything other than an ideological desire to stigmatise the poor?
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: *awaits Rollies comments...something along the lines of evil Tories...vulnerable people....the poor...blah blah blah*[/p][/quote]No I won't bother I'll just say incompetent Tories messing with things they don't understand for the sake of an ideological hatred of those less well off. I think that about covers it. Are there any policies they have got right and that were driven by anything other than an ideological desire to stigmatise the poor? RollandSmoke
  • Score: -2

4:18pm Thu 27 Feb 14

linebacker2 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
*awaits Rollies comments...something along the lines of evil Tories...vulnerable people....the poor...blah blah blah*
No I won't bother I'll just say incompetent Tories messing with things they don't understand for the sake of an ideological hatred of those less well off. I think that about covers it. Are there any policies they have got right and that were driven by anything other than an ideological desire to stigmatise the poor?
I have a house bigger than what I need, that's my choice and I pay out of my own pocket - why should I pay for someone else's too big house as well?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: *awaits Rollies comments...something along the lines of evil Tories...vulnerable people....the poor...blah blah blah*[/p][/quote]No I won't bother I'll just say incompetent Tories messing with things they don't understand for the sake of an ideological hatred of those less well off. I think that about covers it. Are there any policies they have got right and that were driven by anything other than an ideological desire to stigmatise the poor?[/p][/quote]I have a house bigger than what I need, that's my choice and I pay out of my own pocket - why should I pay for someone else's too big house as well? linebacker2
  • Score: 7

4:32pm Thu 27 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

linebacker2 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
*awaits Rollies comments...something along the lines of evil Tories...vulnerable people....the poor...blah blah blah*
No I won't bother I'll just say incompetent Tories messing with things they don't understand for the sake of an ideological hatred of those less well off. I think that about covers it. Are there any policies they have got right and that were driven by anything other than an ideological desire to stigmatise the poor?
I have a house bigger than what I need, that's my choice and I pay out of my own pocket - why should I pay for someone else's too big house as well?
Because you chose your house rather than it being allocated to you. You had a choice about how much money you were willing to spend. If the cost of your mortgage was to jump up by 14 or 25% overnight then you would quite rightly complain. Finally lets not forget that prior to this bedroom tax the landlords not those now required to pay out of very limited funds would have been the ones pocketing the money. There is not the housing stock to enable people to move therefore this is entrapment.
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: *awaits Rollies comments...something along the lines of evil Tories...vulnerable people....the poor...blah blah blah*[/p][/quote]No I won't bother I'll just say incompetent Tories messing with things they don't understand for the sake of an ideological hatred of those less well off. I think that about covers it. Are there any policies they have got right and that were driven by anything other than an ideological desire to stigmatise the poor?[/p][/quote]I have a house bigger than what I need, that's my choice and I pay out of my own pocket - why should I pay for someone else's too big house as well?[/p][/quote]Because you chose your house rather than it being allocated to you. You had a choice about how much money you were willing to spend. If the cost of your mortgage was to jump up by 14 or 25% overnight then you would quite rightly complain. Finally lets not forget that prior to this bedroom tax the landlords not those now required to pay out of very limited funds would have been the ones pocketing the money. There is not the housing stock to enable people to move therefore this is entrapment. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -1

4:51pm Thu 27 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

Please could someone find evidence that prior to 2010 there was a "spare room subsidy" being paid to those who are now expected to pay for it's removal. Any old official document will do. Remember we are looking specifically for the words "spare room subsidy". Until proof is presented then this is a tax nothing more nothing less.
Please could someone find evidence that prior to 2010 there was a "spare room subsidy" being paid to those who are now expected to pay for it's removal. Any old official document will do. Remember we are looking specifically for the words "spare room subsidy". Until proof is presented then this is a tax nothing more nothing less. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -3

5:39pm Thu 27 Feb 14

tinytoonster says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
*awaits Rollies comments...something along the lines of evil Tories...vulnerable people....the poor...blah blah blah*
No I won't bother I'll just say incompetent Tories messing with things they don't understand for the sake of an ideological hatred of those less well off. I think that about covers it. Are there any policies they have got right and that were driven by anything other than an ideological desire to stigmatise the poor?
I have a house bigger than what I need, that's my choice and I pay out of my own pocket - why should I pay for someone else's too big house as well?
Because you chose your house rather than it being allocated to you. You had a choice about how much money you were willing to spend. If the cost of your mortgage was to jump up by 14 or 25% overnight then you would quite rightly complain. Finally lets not forget that prior to this bedroom tax the landlords not those now required to pay out of very limited funds would have been the ones pocketing the money. There is not the housing stock to enable people to move therefore this is entrapment.
wrong again!
when you apply for a property they ask you how many bedrooms you need.
when children etc move out you are supposed to get a smaller property so somebody else can have it.
people dont so then we have a shortage.
simple as that.
we had no kids at home so we sold and moved to a 2 bed house.
cheaper on council tax, heating.
oh thats right you do not pay council tax etc!!
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: *awaits Rollies comments...something along the lines of evil Tories...vulnerable people....the poor...blah blah blah*[/p][/quote]No I won't bother I'll just say incompetent Tories messing with things they don't understand for the sake of an ideological hatred of those less well off. I think that about covers it. Are there any policies they have got right and that were driven by anything other than an ideological desire to stigmatise the poor?[/p][/quote]I have a house bigger than what I need, that's my choice and I pay out of my own pocket - why should I pay for someone else's too big house as well?[/p][/quote]Because you chose your house rather than it being allocated to you. You had a choice about how much money you were willing to spend. If the cost of your mortgage was to jump up by 14 or 25% overnight then you would quite rightly complain. Finally lets not forget that prior to this bedroom tax the landlords not those now required to pay out of very limited funds would have been the ones pocketing the money. There is not the housing stock to enable people to move therefore this is entrapment.[/p][/quote]wrong again! when you apply for a property they ask you how many bedrooms you need. when children etc move out you are supposed to get a smaller property so somebody else can have it. people dont so then we have a shortage. simple as that. we had no kids at home so we sold and moved to a 2 bed house. cheaper on council tax, heating. oh thats right you do not pay council tax etc!! tinytoonster
  • Score: 1

5:44pm Thu 27 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

tinytoonster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
*awaits Rollies comments...something along the lines of evil Tories...vulnerable people....the poor...blah blah blah*
No I won't bother I'll just say incompetent Tories messing with things they don't understand for the sake of an ideological hatred of those less well off. I think that about covers it. Are there any policies they have got right and that were driven by anything other than an ideological desire to stigmatise the poor?
I have a house bigger than what I need, that's my choice and I pay out of my own pocket - why should I pay for someone else's too big house as well?
Because you chose your house rather than it being allocated to you. You had a choice about how much money you were willing to spend. If the cost of your mortgage was to jump up by 14 or 25% overnight then you would quite rightly complain. Finally lets not forget that prior to this bedroom tax the landlords not those now required to pay out of very limited funds would have been the ones pocketing the money. There is not the housing stock to enable people to move therefore this is entrapment.
wrong again!
when you apply for a property they ask you how many bedrooms you need.
when children etc move out you are supposed to get a smaller property so somebody else can have it.
people dont so then we have a shortage.
simple as that.
we had no kids at home so we sold and moved to a 2 bed house.
cheaper on council tax, heating.
oh thats right you do not pay council tax etc!!
If there is not sufficient stock of single bedroom properties then people would be allocated a two bedroom property. Are these people supposed to refuse the two bedroom property and remain homeless if that is all that is available?
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: *awaits Rollies comments...something along the lines of evil Tories...vulnerable people....the poor...blah blah blah*[/p][/quote]No I won't bother I'll just say incompetent Tories messing with things they don't understand for the sake of an ideological hatred of those less well off. I think that about covers it. Are there any policies they have got right and that were driven by anything other than an ideological desire to stigmatise the poor?[/p][/quote]I have a house bigger than what I need, that's my choice and I pay out of my own pocket - why should I pay for someone else's too big house as well?[/p][/quote]Because you chose your house rather than it being allocated to you. You had a choice about how much money you were willing to spend. If the cost of your mortgage was to jump up by 14 or 25% overnight then you would quite rightly complain. Finally lets not forget that prior to this bedroom tax the landlords not those now required to pay out of very limited funds would have been the ones pocketing the money. There is not the housing stock to enable people to move therefore this is entrapment.[/p][/quote]wrong again! when you apply for a property they ask you how many bedrooms you need. when children etc move out you are supposed to get a smaller property so somebody else can have it. people dont so then we have a shortage. simple as that. we had no kids at home so we sold and moved to a 2 bed house. cheaper on council tax, heating. oh thats right you do not pay council tax etc!![/p][/quote]If there is not sufficient stock of single bedroom properties then people would be allocated a two bedroom property. Are these people supposed to refuse the two bedroom property and remain homeless if that is all that is available? RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

8:20pm Thu 27 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

Of course the Tories thinly veiled attempt to force people out of social housing and into the private sector at greater expense to the taxpayer has nothing at all to do with the fact that a quarter of Tory MPs are landlords does it? Twice the percentage of Labour MP landlords.
A Third of ex-council homes now owned by rich landlords

http://www.mirror.co
.uk/news/uk-news/rig
ht-to-buy-housing-sh
ame-third-ex-council
-1743338#ixzz2uYU7NS
i4

Richest MP in Britain slams welfare state but makes £625k a year in housing benefit

http://www.mirror.co
.uk/news/uk-news/ric
hest-mp-britain-slam
s-welfare-3178089#ix
zz2uYVRZqnM

This is where your money goes. Stop looking at the targets that they point out for you to look at and examine what these Tory scumbags are doing.
Of course the Tories thinly veiled attempt to force people out of social housing and into the private sector at greater expense to the taxpayer has nothing at all to do with the fact that a quarter of Tory MPs are landlords does it? Twice the percentage of Labour MP landlords. A Third of ex-council homes now owned by rich landlords http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/rig ht-to-buy-housing-sh ame-third-ex-council -1743338#ixzz2uYU7NS i4 Richest MP in Britain slams welfare state but makes £625k a year in housing benefit http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/ric hest-mp-britain-slam s-welfare-3178089#ix zz2uYVRZqnM This is where your money goes. Stop looking at the targets that they point out for you to look at and examine what these Tory scumbags are doing. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Alhaurinrhino says...

I think most honest hard working people really don't care if some sponging chav loses an extra tenner because their free flat has an extra room, what they do care about is having to work hard to provide for their families whilst the bone idle sit back and expect to kept, this includes the disabled, many of whom could do a lot more to support themselves than they actually do.
Keep cutting back is the war cry of the responsible workers.
I think most honest hard working people really don't care if some sponging chav loses an extra tenner because their free flat has an extra room, what they do care about is having to work hard to provide for their families whilst the bone idle sit back and expect to kept, this includes the disabled, many of whom could do a lot more to support themselves than they actually do. Keep cutting back is the war cry of the responsible workers. Alhaurinrhino
  • Score: 1

8:57pm Thu 27 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

Alhaurinrhino wrote:
I think most honest hard working people really don't care if some sponging chav loses an extra tenner because their free flat has an extra room, what they do care about is having to work hard to provide for their families whilst the bone idle sit back and expect to kept, this includes the disabled, many of whom could do a lot more to support themselves than they actually do.
Keep cutting back is the war cry of the responsible workers.
Shill.
[quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: I think most honest hard working people really don't care if some sponging chav loses an extra tenner because their free flat has an extra room, what they do care about is having to work hard to provide for their families whilst the bone idle sit back and expect to kept, this includes the disabled, many of whom could do a lot more to support themselves than they actually do. Keep cutting back is the war cry of the responsible workers.[/p][/quote]Shill. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Bantambhoy says...

Grumpygirl wrote:
This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality
Rollies new name? or his sister!
[quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality[/p][/quote]Rollies new name? or his sister! Bantambhoy
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Bantambhoy says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Of course the Tories thinly veiled attempt to force people out of social housing and into the private sector at greater expense to the taxpayer has nothing at all to do with the fact that a quarter of Tory MPs are landlords does it? Twice the percentage of Labour MP landlords.
A Third of ex-council homes now owned by rich landlords

http://www.mirror.co

.uk/news/uk-news/rig

ht-to-buy-housing-sh

ame-third-ex-council

-1743338#ixzz2uYU7NS

i4

Richest MP in Britain slams welfare state but makes £625k a year in housing benefit

http://www.mirror.co

.uk/news/uk-news/ric

hest-mp-britain-slam

s-welfare-3178089#ix

zz2uYVRZqnM

This is where your money goes. Stop looking at the targets that they point out for you to look at and examine what these Tory scumbags are doing.
Daily Mirror reader, enough said.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Of course the Tories thinly veiled attempt to force people out of social housing and into the private sector at greater expense to the taxpayer has nothing at all to do with the fact that a quarter of Tory MPs are landlords does it? Twice the percentage of Labour MP landlords. A Third of ex-council homes now owned by rich landlords http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/rig ht-to-buy-housing-sh ame-third-ex-council -1743338#ixzz2uYU7NS i4 Richest MP in Britain slams welfare state but makes £625k a year in housing benefit http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/ric hest-mp-britain-slam s-welfare-3178089#ix zz2uYVRZqnM This is where your money goes. Stop looking at the targets that they point out for you to look at and examine what these Tory scumbags are doing.[/p][/quote]Daily Mirror reader, enough said. Bantambhoy
  • Score: 0

9:23pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Bantambhoy says...

linebacker2 wrote:
Grumpygirl wrote:
This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality
Benefit cap only applies to those receiving more than average wage in benefits - how can someone be on above average wage AND be poor?

Labour created a client state of people on benefits and in public sector employment for electoral reasons - Coalition is quite rightly undoing this..
Spot on LB2
It also doesn't apply to people who have lived in their houses for a number of years, so those who had children who have now grown up and left are not affected.
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: This should not surprise us, this is typical of the Tories. Bedroom Tax, ATOS, benefit cap; when it comes to the poor, it's a question of take first and ask questions later. The Tories exist to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. They are the party of greed and inequality[/p][/quote]Benefit cap only applies to those receiving more than average wage in benefits - how can someone be on above average wage AND be poor? Labour created a client state of people on benefits and in public sector employment for electoral reasons - Coalition is quite rightly undoing this..[/p][/quote]Spot on LB2 It also doesn't apply to people who have lived in their houses for a number of years, so those who had children who have now grown up and left are not affected. Bantambhoy
  • Score: -1

9:23pm Thu 27 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

Bantambhoy wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Of course the Tories thinly veiled attempt to force people out of social housing and into the private sector at greater expense to the taxpayer has nothing at all to do with the fact that a quarter of Tory MPs are landlords does it? Twice the percentage of Labour MP landlords.
A Third of ex-council homes now owned by rich landlords

http://www.mirror.co


.uk/news/uk-news/rig


ht-to-buy-housing-sh


ame-third-ex-council


-1743338#ixzz2uYU7NS


i4

Richest MP in Britain slams welfare state but makes £625k a year in housing benefit

http://www.mirror.co


.uk/news/uk-news/ric


hest-mp-britain-slam


s-welfare-3178089#ix


zz2uYVRZqnM

This is where your money goes. Stop looking at the targets that they point out for you to look at and examine what these Tory scumbags are doing.
Daily Mirror reader, enough said.
Not really I read all manner of publications online. Are you saying that the information given is incorrect or are you just suprised that I don't limit my source of information to the Torygraph and Anus?
[quote][p][bold]Bantambhoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Of course the Tories thinly veiled attempt to force people out of social housing and into the private sector at greater expense to the taxpayer has nothing at all to do with the fact that a quarter of Tory MPs are landlords does it? Twice the percentage of Labour MP landlords. A Third of ex-council homes now owned by rich landlords http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/rig ht-to-buy-housing-sh ame-third-ex-council -1743338#ixzz2uYU7NS i4 Richest MP in Britain slams welfare state but makes £625k a year in housing benefit http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/ric hest-mp-britain-slam s-welfare-3178089#ix zz2uYVRZqnM This is where your money goes. Stop looking at the targets that they point out for you to look at and examine what these Tory scumbags are doing.[/p][/quote]Daily Mirror reader, enough said.[/p][/quote]Not really I read all manner of publications online. Are you saying that the information given is incorrect or are you just suprised that I don't limit my source of information to the Torygraph and Anus? RollandSmoke
  • Score: -1

2:51am Fri 28 Feb 14

dellorri says...

As if they hadn't done enough to end housing benefit, the latest scheme from the DWP is now shown in a leaked memo. Revealed by "inside housing" the trade magazine of housing associations, It appears that as housing benefit will be an element of the new "Universal Credit" ANYONE claiming UC will be subject to a claimant commitment agreement, much as those claiming JSA are now. This WILL include anybody who is WORKING and on a low income, thus having to claim tax credits and housing benefit, in order to top up their wages and help with rent. However even though working, they will still be subject to being told to find a better job, or more work, or more hours, which obviously will then lower their entitlement to benefit. Should they fail to follow these instructions, they will pay the same price as JSA claimants. The only problem is, the benefit that will be sanctioned is..............HOUS
ING BENEFIT.
Which will lead to arrears and possible eviction for someone who is in full time work. Now that really makes work pay don't you think???

www.insidehousing.co
.uk/dwp-housing-bene
fit-will-be-sanction
ed/7002330.article
As if they hadn't done enough to end housing benefit, the latest scheme from the DWP is now shown in a leaked memo. Revealed by "inside housing" the trade magazine of housing associations, It appears that as housing benefit will be an element of the new "Universal Credit" ANYONE claiming UC will be subject to a claimant commitment agreement, much as those claiming JSA are now. This WILL include anybody who is WORKING and on a low income, thus having to claim tax credits and housing benefit, in order to top up their wages and help with rent. However even though working, they will still be subject to being told to find a better job, or more work, or more hours, which obviously will then lower their entitlement to benefit. Should they fail to follow these instructions, they will pay the same price as JSA claimants. The only problem is, the benefit that will be sanctioned is..............HOUS ING BENEFIT. Which will lead to arrears and possible eviction for someone who is in full time work. Now that really makes work pay don't you think??? www.insidehousing.co .uk/dwp-housing-bene fit-will-be-sanction ed/7002330.article dellorri
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree