'bedroom Tax': Government Loses Court Of Appeal Cases

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35418488

"Michael Spencer, from the Child Poverty Action Group, said the ruling meant families "can stay in their homes safe in the knowledge that their disabled children can get the care they need".

Marvelous outcome for these poor families.

[jackthehat]

It's not a 'one-off' misinterpretation. It is a circumstance that was not considered when drawing up the Regulations and the Rutherfords are by no means the only family affected by it.

Re-addressing the Regulations and ensuring that they take ALL situations into account is the right and proper thing to do.

[tamborine]

No one wants disabled inconvenienced but not all are honest. I know a retarded, blind 25y chap whose druggie dad moved into 4b Holloway CH after mother"s death, and takes all the income, leaving only bare essentials for the claimant.

[jackthehat]

You'd do well to alert the authorities, in that case....

[tamborine]

My 87y lone aunt occupies 3b CH with 45y unempolyed divorced son, claiming carers allowance for her. He has every intention of keeping house after aunts occupation. He claims sick but in the pub every & all day.

[jackthehat]

He may intend to.....but that's not always the way things work out.

[mikey4444]

Its plain for everyone to see that the couple from Pembrokeshire should never have put into the position in the first place, and IDS should have written the new legislation to make sure that they weren't.

But this Nasty Party that we have now haven't even got the honesty to admit that......they are even appealing against the Court of Appeal !

[naomi24]

//Nasty Party //

Oh gawd! How many more times? He's clearly latched on to a new catchphrase. It does seem to be popping up with alarming regularity at the moment. Still, if it means he'll leave the allegedly 6000 year old Grand Canyon alone for a while, it'll be a break. Hallelujah! :o)

[Svejk]

I'm not a great fan of the way this policy is implemented.
But, just to be clear, the Pembrokeshire couple weren't losing any money. They just weren't happy receiving the subsidy from the discretionary fund as opposed to having the 'right' to demand it.

[sandyRoe]

If belts needed to be tightened discretionary funds could be among the first to be stopped.

[Svejk]

Couldas, wouldas, ifs an ans. They've spent an awful lot of time (and other people's money) to prove a point. No doubt with encouragement from the sort of people that make a living out of this sort of thing.

[naomi24]

Svejk, // the Pembrokeshire couple weren't losing any money. They just weren't happy receiving the subsidy from the discretionary fund as opposed to having the 'right' to demand it. //

In that case this has been very poorly reported. I wonder why?