Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I think there is something wrong with DDC's system; I went online to pay our council tax the other day but the system said I owed £0.00 despite having a bill in my hand for £1300 odd.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
just sounds like this years bills have not connected with a part of the system yet.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Just received this; although it's not about DDC, perhaps many Councils up and down the country could reassess ther council houses too.
Benefit changes: Leeds City Council could 'reclassify' bedrooms The council could reclassify 865 homes in Leeds to prevent tenants losing some of their housing benefit.
Plans to "reclassify" bedrooms in more than 800 council homes are being considered in Leeds, in response to housing benefit changes.
The council said it was looking at reducing the number of people "penalised for under-occupancy".
It was stated - "it is wholly unreasonable" to reduce tenants' housing benefit when "there are no other properties available".
Council tenants with one spare bedroom will lose 14% of their housing benefit, while those with two or more spare bedrooms will lose 25%. The government said this would result in £490m savings for the taxpayer in 2013-14.
Leeds City Council said officers were looking into the possibility of re-designating 398 three-bedroom flats as two-bedroom, 341 five-bedroom houses as four-bedroom, and 126 two-bedroom flats as one-bedroom.
"These properties are being looked at because they fall into the highest percentage of properties are are currently affected by under-occupancy. The bedrooms we are looking at reclassifying, are really box rooms, store rooms, rooms off living rooms, which we feel able to say are not really functioning as bedrooms."
The authority would not confirm how much it would lose in rent as a result, but it would make savings by avoiding the legal costs and additional staff that come with chasing rent."
A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions said it was up to the council to decide how many bedrooms a property had.
They added: "We are giving councils £150m this year so that they can help their vulnerable tenants."
Roger
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Roger.
Thank you for highlighting this to us.
Two things I would like to add, one is that many like me, do not have a spare room, the room that the council says is spare, is actually used by me and many members of my family throughout the whole year, so is not spare to rent out to a stranger.
The second point is that, I have always said these cuts would cost more to implement and no savings would ever be made.
Obviously Leeds Council has done their maths "but it would make savings by avoiding the legal costs and additional staff that come with chasing rent."
So if these cuts are not going to save money and reduce the UK deficit, why are they being implemented?
Come on DDC.
Identify the genuine disabled and vulnerable people in your council houses and do the right thing by them.
You have the power to review these cuts and use your discretion.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
I can see the reasons and the need for this change and it is a problem that needs addressing.
This is not the right way.
It is a fact that there are tenants living 2/3 bedroom houses that could be moved to smaller dwellings but it needs to be and could be, implemented in a far better way than this badly thought out bedroom tax.
All council tenants are now completely on their own, at the mercy of the internet, thanks to another very unfair and ill-conceived move by DDC(I think), to distance themselves from allocating or transferring tenants, who want to downsize or upsize.
This has been going on for years now but just imaging how important this is going to be, now that some tenants who want to downsize or will agree to downsize, will contact the council only to be told "if you want to move, you have to go on the internet and do it yourself"?
I don't think I need to point out that the very people who might agree to move, will not, because of this obstacle.
For instance, my own Mother & Father lived nearly all of their married life in their council house in the same street that I now live in. Later on in life they would never have given up their home, not even when they both became ill. Until I became their carer and looked into finding out if there were any vacant adapted properties for them to move to.
I found one and persuaded them to take a look and they liked it so much, they could not wait to move in and they were very happy.
Not everyone has carers or family or even if they have, that does not mean that they would bother with trying to get a move on this internet system, or they simply do not have a computer and cannot access it.
So a status quo has been reached on getting this problem sorted, thanks to this internet system, in my view.
This could be the right way.
Obviously a team has been set up to recover rent arrears that are going to be incurred due to these bedroom cuts.
When I spoke to these people and asked to downsize, I was told that they could not help me and that I would have to do it myself on the internet.
Instead of burdening these genuine tenants with increases they cannot afford, why not use this team to help those who want to move to smaller premises, providing that is their wish?
Many tenant's living in 3 bedroom houses, will not move until they have been shown a suitable place for them to move to.
Cutting benefits and telling them to go on the internet if they want to downsize, will not solve this problem.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
looks like a major re think required
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Keith I agree.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
careful peter
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
I still cannot pay my rent arrears on ddc website, is anyone else having the same problem?
I can pay via auto on the number that the income recovery section gave me but I have a query and cannot get an answer to talk to someone.
I have been told that the Kent Housing Association has only 1, one bedroom and 1, two bedroom properties, that are vacant.
I don't know how you would find that out but does anyone know if this is true?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
whos your local cllr?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
Garry have you looked up Choiced based lettings on DDC web site .I note there are several one bedroom flats bungallows also two beds for let .Bids in by 17th april.Gary did you try paying your rent at Area Office ?
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Sue.
Thank you for your advice but I don't intend moving.
I was born in Wilson Avenue, I still live in Wilson Avenue and would like to live there for the rest of my life.
My 3rd bedroom is not spare, all my kids and grand kids use it all the time, I sleep in it from time to time and my 3 cats all take advantage of it, so I don't believe the council have the right to say i should consider putting a stranger in there at the expence of my own family.
I will try rent office again on monday.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
well done gary
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Sue.
My thanks for your advice was genuine as I am sure your advice was genuine.
Having re-read #132 again, it might look like I was throwing your advice back at you and that was definitely not the case.
What I am trying to highlight is the fact that whereas some of us would have no problem with your advice, to look up "Choiced based lettings on DDC web site" there are many more who cannot.
Many of your DDC tenants living in declared under-occupied 2/3 bedroom places, do not have the knowhow or even the means, to access any website, let alone the DDC website.
Also many have very good, mostly medical & family social reasons, for declaring that they in fact, do not have a spare bedroom at all.
I certainly do not class my 3rd bedroom as spare bedroom and I believe that myself and others have the right to defend that position.
Giving 13 weeks of means tested subsidence to offset this decrease in benefit, for the genuine disabled & vulnerable that are being caught up in this attempt right the wrongs, that are occurring within our benefits system, is wrong.
What do these people do after 13 weeks?
There are many wrongs with our benefits society and with our tax system and they should be addressed but this is not the way to achieve it.
DDC should use their discretion and listen to the reasons given to them by their tenants, as to why they feel the need for this bedroom, for themselves or their family.
No spare room means no decrease in benefits for the genuine Disabled and Vulnerable tenants.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
It amazes me how many so called `informed`` people cannot grasp how ill-conceived this policy is......................
bedroom tax protests at Lord Freud and Iain Duncan Smith's million pound mansions
UK Uncut stages bedroom tax protests at Lord Freud and Iain Duncan Smith's million
pound mansions
Hundreds of people are protesting over the bedroom tax and benefits cap at Lord Freud's
£1.9million home and 20 disabled activists are staging a protest at Iain Duncan Smith's
country mansion in Buckinghamshire worth more than £2million.
The protest was called by UK Uncut, the anti-cuts direct action network, who promised that
they would 'bring resistance to the homes of high profile politicians pushing the cuts'
. Lord Freud, the Tory peer and former investment banker, has spearheaded the bedroom tax,
cuts to the Welfare State and the introduction of the Universal Credit.
He also has an eight-bedroom mansion in Kent.....................................
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,885
The silly thing is that it is simply not practical to try and move anyone who is disabled and whose home has been adapted to their particular needs, just imagine the cost of converting it back and adapting a new smaller place.
The whole idea has not been thought through properly and is crazy, the lunatics are definitely running the asylum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Having just returned from a meeting with a person from the rent department, at Whitfield, to apply for discretion for Bedroom Tax, I have to inform you about the experience.
It is fair to say that I am not happy with paying it, so I was not in the best of moods,
I don't think I should reveal the officer's name on here but I would like to thank her for her help and advice. She was firm but fair and as I have said before, they are doing a very difficult job at a very difficult time.
I am still not happy but I am a lot clearer on how DDC are dealing with this situation. One very good point was to hear that they are assisting people who are caught up with this and wish to move to smaller premises. Giving people this type of help and assistance will benefit everyone, the tenant, the housing association and DDC, so well done there.
I still feel they could go one better and re-asses these bedrooms like other councils are doing, especially on medical grounds, so there is still room for improvement.
However I think it is the enormous pressure that is being put on our local councils by the present government, that is the important issue.
This has been thrust upon these councils with no thought and with ridiculous, unworkable conditions and criteria for them to work to.
On one hand they have given them room for discretion and a fund for this discretion but they have given them guidelines to work with on these discretions that will make it very difficult for these councils to pass them on to the genuine people that need them.
It is having an effect on addressing the anomalies that we all agree, need addressing with these benefits but more needs to be done to protect the genuine disabled and vulnerable people that are getting caught up in this.
DDC are doing more than Thanet and some other councils so well done there but come on DDC, you could do more?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Sounds like a very balanced posting Gary - in what way do you believe more could be done ?
I spoke to PaulW about this and he believes that Leeds City Council may well be challenged in the Courts over it, but only time will tell if that is the case.
Do you think it is a matter of interpretation ?
Roger
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Roger.
It seems to me that this Government have not thought much about the consequences to the tenants that genuinely need this other bedroom for medical and personal reasons
Again they are swinging the hammer to crack the nut, when a bit of common sense would suffice.
DC is telling everyone how sympathetic he is with providing a massive discretion fund and powers to local council's but what he does not say, is that because of the constrictions and regulations that he has put in place with these discretions, it is near impossible for local councils, to implement them.
If Paul is right with Leeds being challenged in court, then that only seals my belief that this government, as with all previous governments, are taking the easy route on trying to fix a flawed benefits system by crushing everyone in it and then see who survives at the end, to start the long road back to where they should never have been taken from in the first place.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Certainly Gary, if this whole was any more than window-dressing and had some basis in cost saving any and all in a situation where their current home was part-built around their specific needs would be exempt, irrespective of the occupancy of the odd bedroom.
With the local elections looming large on the horizon, one might think that doing this one decent thing could go some way to offsetting the common impression that all we have at the moment is the old 'Terrible Tories'.
Then again, why change the habits:"They don't care, we don't matter."
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.