First Suicide Due To Bedroom Tax Reported

As of 2010-11 - There isn't life tenancies anymore. It isn't retrospective: eight million existing social tenants will not be affected.
I don't think it is feasible to say: well, you can stay here for a fixed period then you are out.
Social housing is not just for people 'going to school' (University) - it's for everybody (which might be the problem)...
8 million in social housing (excluding any other family) and 3 million waiting for social housing (excluding any family)...
Lets just say, 1/4 of the population of England is in or waiting to be in social housing.

 

if we adhere to your line of thought, we could say that about every person who has taken their life so far since the benefits cuts and, unnecessary in my view, austerity measures… the poorest people in the country are losing their homes because of this unholy alliance between aristocracy, government, corporation, us military industrial complex, law etc, blah blah blah… people are going hungry... they are scrabbling for food bargains, free offer and food bank facilities etc… and still they're going hungry... families are having children removed from them. Homeless people are DYING on the streets, and you don't think the government are responsible? no, it wasn't JUST the bedroom tax Odon, it was all the other ways in which she was being undermined as a human being… kinda gets to ya after a while mate...

simply put, i just think that if she says that it was the government that let her down and that's why she killed herself, then our government has blood on it's hands… period...

 

Thats interesting.
Maybe we/you could instill measure to ensure it isn't being abused though. Because, like I said, if you can afford luxury goods you don't need public assistance to shelter yourself.

 

How do you perceive 'my line of thought' ?

Why are 'they' having their children removed?
Dying on the streets? I do think you are being a tad melodramatic, but I do appreciate the difficulties homeless people face.

Not entirely, no.
I would put some responsibility on her (help was being offered and was there - she does not seem to have taken it).
Some on her family and friends (if she actually had some true friends)
Some on 'the government' (well, perhaps on her local council)...

What other ways? Do you know her?

I understand why you think that...

Like I said:

All she really says is: it was the government.
And I did say earlier you can't really question that.
Even if other details are glaringly obvious.
At the end of the day she was let down.
We just disagree who let her down.

...and to add: ...and to what extent.

 

Council housing isn't means tested' at the moment - but could be.
Housing benefit (money given by government to pay the rent) is.
So, if the person isn't getting housing benefit, they could still be in a council property, and paying the rent themselves (and possibly buying luxury goods).
Odd, isn't it?
I'll have to do a little bit of research regarding how many people are in council property but are not getting housing benefit.
I think the HB is approx' 17-18 billion a year.

I'm on the housing list, but am not holding my breath...
I'm able, earning and single with no dependants...
Not somebody the council seems too keen on helping...

We have all grown up here with 'council housing' and full housing benefit...
It's all changing, though.

 

by your line of thought, i mean your insistence that it is not the fault of the government that these people are killing themselves… and it is people… not just the woman referenced here… so many go unreported in the mainstream… if i find any links to what is not being reported in the mainstream press, i'll post 'em… my point being, you are wrong… i'm not being melodramatic…


they are having their children removed because they are becoming homeless…

and i have to remain in firm disagreement with you over the governments hand in the deaths of people across the country… you simply don't seem to understand that people are falling through the net due to depression/trauma etc… you think the government don't know this? and what do the government do? demonise and rob the poor further, to distract from their own foul dealings…

by the other ways, i mean the whole impact of austerity on the poor… it's not just the bedroom tax is it… but it IS the government and their austerity measures, whilst handing out obscene bonuses to wanksters who don't even deserve their salaries let alone the bonuses… then there's the increases in utility prices and foods and fares… the sanctions from esa and jobseekers… the slave labour rampant in this country… come on Odon… surely you are aware of all the other things that impact negatively on already weakened shoulders? the weeks/months with extreme limits on access to nutritional food… i could go on mate…

don't really understand the point of your last paragraph or so...

 

lillallyloukins

I said it was not completely the governments fault.
However, regardless of what I may think/read into the story/my prejudices etc etc etc - that's basically how this is being interpreted, and what I have to accept as the reality.

Melodramatic might have been the wrong word to use - unfair might be better.
I do know children are put into care for a variety of reasons (I was one of them).
I do not accept that children are removed from a parent or their parents simply because they are homeless, and that social services do not have any duty of care towards the family as a whole unit (because that's basically what you are saying)...
I think I said it was melodramatic because you seemed to be implying that was the norm.
That what you were saying was quite common.
It isn't.
Infact, it is rare.
I believe a child is taken into care if the parent or parents pose a risk to that child (and not the inability to feed or house them).

I do understand that people fall through the net.
I am just acknowledging that net is there, that's all.

'...demonise and rob the poor further, to distract from their own foul dealing.'

Demonise them how?

'by the other ways, i mean the whole impact of austerity on the poor…'

I was talking about this one woman in particular.

'don't really understand the point of your last paragraph or so...'

I'm saying the same thing at the top of this post.


Issues to consider:

Nearly one third of working-age social housing tenants on Housing Benefit are living in accommodation too big for their needs
There are approaching 1 million extra bedrooms that are paid for by Housing Benefit
There are over 250,000 households living in overcrowded accommodation in the Social Rented Sector in England, who need more space
1.8 million households in England are on the housing waiting list.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-removal-of-the-spare-room-subsidy-fact-sheet

 

Its probably different in the UK..but here in New York... public housing is awful. Movies pretty accurately depict how bad it is in the Bronx - it lives up to its reputation and beyond.

 

On the inside, every council property (or housing association property) I have been in I would not mind living in.
The area in which it is situated might sometimes leave a lot to be desired, though.
My brother had a walk in wet room installed into his council property because he said he had some trouble with his back (he didn't), and he couldn't get into the bath. Then he had his back garden done up with access to the main road from the rear, because he said his scooter was at risk of being stolen, and the rear of his flat wasn't secure enough (it was) ...

...I doubt that happens in the Bronx, right?

I think, ironically, the type of property common in public housing (in the Bronx, for e.g) today (high rise apartments/flats) is what we knocked down a decade or two ago, but would maybe solve a few of the issues we have now (not enough smaller dwellings).

I would not like to be a housing minister...

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/kris-hopkins

 

It sounds a lot different from the way it is here. I'll put it this way, I wouldn't walk past public housing here. That's all I will say.

 

It's not perfect, and there are 'no go areas' in certain cities, for sure.
I do know where abouts in the world a lot of the behaviour of the gangs here comes from
He did 'play the system' but no real questions were asked.

 

Ha... but the government is busy downsizing the military and falling back on the TA instead.

A lot of disgruntled ex-squaddies unexpectedly finding themselves back in the real world. I believe something similar happened after the Napoleonic Wars, and the results weren't pretty.

 

Oh wow, yes, that's a great idea. Keep people constantly on the move, increase feelings of alienation and dislocation, make sure nothing resembling a community can grow.

Have you ever heard the term precariat ? Wikipedia defines it as :

A social class formed by people suffering from precarity, which is a condition of existence without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare as well as being a member of a Proletariat class of industrial workers who lack their own means of production and hence sell their labour to live. Specifically, it is applied to the condition of lack of job security, in other words intermittent employment or underemployment and the resultant precarious existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat

That's where so many of us in the UK are today. Please dont expect us to like it.

 

So it seems your brother has been playing the system and lying for material gain ?

Ooops ! There goes the moral high ground. I do hope you'll be having a stern word with him.

 

Just to remind you that there is a week of action against workfare and sanctions planned for this week, both at physical locations and online.

More details in the protest thread, or see http://www.boycottworkfare.org/




.

 

If suicide is for cowards, then how come so many soldiers commit suicide? I believe around 18 US soldiers (vets) commit suicide each day. Now, if they are so tough, why are they "cowards"?

So let me guess, you guys calling it cowardice have no mental issues, PTSD, or other things going on in your life. Your have your own ups and downs, surely, but you would never commit suicide. Just wait, you know. The human mind can shatter.

edit: suicide in general, not necessarily because of this bedroom tax, which I'm not even sure what it is. I'm not a UK citizen.

 

And at the other end of the scale - how the other half (the architects of austerity) actually live. There are the real benefit cheats.

I'm really looking forward to someone trying to justify this...

Tory minister claims £6,000 in London hotel bills but has a home ONE MILE away from Parliament

Expenses happy Cabinet minister Andrew Lansley also owns country home less than an hour away


Tory Cabinet minister Andrew Lansley claimed £6,000 in London hotel bills despite owning a home ONE MILE from Parliament.

The House of Commons Leader enjoyed dozens of overnight stays on the taxpayer while the £1million flat he owns with his wife was a 15-minute walk away.

Official records indicate ex-Health Secretary Mr Lansley – who earns a ministerial salary of £134,565 – has no tenants in the Georgian property because he has not declared any rental income from it.

But it is believed that one Lansley family member uses the flat in trendy Pimlico.

And at the end of his working day the MP could even return to his constituency home in South Cambridgeshire, only a 50-minute train ride away from London.

:devil: Worth noting that the unemployed are told that they must be willing to travel 90 minutes by public transport to jobs that will pay far far less than a Tory minister gets - nor will they get subsidised travel.

Latest expenses records from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority reveal Mr Lansley claimed £4,978 on hotel stays between April 2012 and March this year.

And in the first three months of the current financial year he claimed £972.

All the time the flat, believed to have more than one bedroom, was not rented out according to the Parliamentary records.

les require MPs to declare any income from property rental in the Register of Members *Financial Interests.

Latest Land Registry records show he and his second wife Sally paid £270,000 for the London home in December 2000 and that they have a mortgage.

Like other flat owners there, the couple are shareholders in a company owning the freehold for the building.

Before claiming for hotels, Lansley was getting expenses for mortgage interest and utility bills for a flat in London.

But IPSA records do not reveal whether the flat he claimed for was the one in Pimlico.

As well as their £1million London home, the Lansleys own a large house in a village near Royston in the Tory’s *constituency. They bought it in 2006 for £647,000.

Even if the MP worked late, the last train to Cambridge does not leave Kings Cross until 12.31am – so he could go home rather than spend taxpayers’ money in the Coalition’s era of austerity.

It is not the first time Mr Lansley – dumped by David Cameron as Health Secretary in 2012 after a barrage of criticism – has been embroiled in *controversy over MPs expenses.

In 2009 it emerged he claimed more than £4,000 of taxpayers’ money for renovations on a country home months before he sold it and moved to a neighbouring village.

He had his thatched Tudor cottage painted inside and out at a cost of more than £2,000 – and also spent more than £500 having the drive re-shingled and grass reseeded before selling it.

Months before he moved out, Mr Lansley “flipped” his expenses claim to his property in London. The MP said the change was because his daughter started attending a nursery in Cambridgeshire, and so his flat in the capital became his second home.

He later agreed to repay £2,600 covering the decorating bill and work on the drive.

IPSA rules allow MPs to claim £150 per night for hotels in London and £120 for those *elsewhere in the country – with breakfast paid for if the stays are within the capped limits.

Records reveal MPs claimed £465,661 for hotel expenses for 2012-2013. So far this year £84,486.62 has been claimed while £469,934.39 was claimed in 2011-2012.

Last month the Sunday Mirror revealed that 350 MPs claimed for their energy bills to be paid, costing the taxpayer more than £200,000 in just 12 months.

A statement from Mr Lansley’s office on Friday said: “On the point about the London flat, I can confirm that this does not appear on the Register because it is *occupied by Mr Lansley’s family and thus he does not derive any net income from this.”

Mr Lansley has two children with Sally – Martha and Charles. He also has three elder daughters from his first marriage – Katherine, Sarah and Eleanor .

Matthew Sinclair, chief *executive of the TaxPayers’ *Alliance said: “MPs do need to get the best deal that they can for taxpayers when making use of accommodation in London.

“Taxpayers will be left wondering why Mr Lansley needs a hotel if he already has *accommodation in the city.

“Constant use of pricey hotel rooms is poor value for those who have to the bill. MPs should only check in as a last resort."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-minister-andrew-lansley-claims-2871089

 

Now read this and compare with the above.



Rent help applications double in Devon and Cornwall

The number of people on benefits asking their council for emergency help to pay their rent has more than doubled in Devon and Cornwall.

Between April and September 2012, a total of 1,600 people applied to their local authority for help, while over the same period this year, applications more than doubled to 4,100.

The increase comes after the government tightened housing benefit rules in April, meaning people with spare bedrooms get less money.

The emergency bailout, known as a discretionary housing payment, is available to help people bridge the shortfall in benefits, but the cash is normally time-limited.

The change to housing benefit has been dubbed the "bedroom tax" by Labour, but the government calls it a "spare room subsidy".

It basically means a housing benefit cut for working age people renting social housing if they are occupying a larger property than their household size and structure would warrant.

One extra bedroom means a 14% reduction in housing benefit, while two extra bedrooms results in a 25% cut.

Under the new rules of under occupancy, Matt Pope, from Mid Devon, has had to find an extra £80 a month to pay his rent since his marriage broke down and his wife and twins moved out, leaving him with two spare bedrooms.

He said it had been a tough year.

"My marriage had broken down, my wife had left taking my children and I'd previously lost my job and tribunal," he told BBC News.

"Then all of a sudden I had letters from the council saying they were going to charge me for the now vacant rooms I had and it felt like the straw that broke the camel's back at that point.

"I did attempt suicide in April - it was a just a culmination of all of those issues."



Mr Pope, who is physically disabled, fell behind with the rent and recently got a letter from his council warning him that he could be evicted if he didn't pay the £78 pounds he owed.

He has been claiming discretionary housing payment to help him cover the shortfall but the amount has reduced over the past 3 months and is due to end in December.

Although Mr Pope is now up to date with his rent after his local parish council used a community crisis fund to pay off his arrears, he knows it was a temporary fix and said he is worried about the future.

"The council has spent thousands of pounds on keeping me in this property by adapting the place to suit my requirements and meet my disability... it doesn't make sense," he said.

The government has given councils more funds for discretionary housing payment this year in anticipation of the impact of its welfare reforms, but some housing providers fear there is not enough money to help everyone who needs it.


Sarah Wigmore, from the Westcountry Housing Association, said there were variations in the rules set out by different local authorities.

"In one area we've made seven applications and all seven applications have been refused," she said

Plymouth has seen one of the biggest increases in people applying for discretionary housing payment - with the number more than tripling from 200 last year to more than 700 this year.

However Oliver Colvile, Conservative MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, insists the benefit changes are needed.

"The problem has been that housing associations haven't really planned for this - they have just thought they could carry on building family houses, when actually there are some people who don't need that," he said.

"The big issue though, is that there are an awful lot of people who are living in cramped accommodation... and we've got to find a way of making sure those people have got the right accommodation."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25060316

:devil: Or you could do what MPs do - stay in a hotel and charge it to the taxpayer, even though you have more than one home within easy reach. And yet people will continue to demonise the poor and condone the excesses of the rich.

 

Whose moral high ground? Mine? I never thought I was trying to climb up there.
This all happened a year or two ago - yes, I let my feelings be known to him at the time.

 

obviously you know nothing of what is actually happening… i know lots of women who, finding themselves homeless are having their children taken from them… i don't know what world you live in… La-la land by the sounds of it…


the british people have paid for council houses something like 20 times over already…

and i can't believe you've read nothing of the demonising of benefits claimants in the papers Odon…


you are so mis-informed when it comes to what is actually going on… i can't tell if you are a shill or just not very perceptive...