Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • if you wish to put up everything like    your defence claimants WS defendants WS   then im sure those here now and future victims will find it of value   if you read upload carefully you'll see its best to upload each as a separate multipage PDF but ofcourse you'll have to redact each page as a jpg picture 1st before merging each to the relevant multipage pdf .   dx  
    • Thanks I’m happy to put something back ! I didn’t have the courage of my convictions to counter claim even though I was really quite proud of the thoroughness of my court bundle ! i really wanted the opportunity to get into the detail with the judge and felt quite cheated when it ended, but of course I realised that they had just moved on to their next victim  will watch this space 👍  
    • I have created your own topic for this as its import to have it own one but placed a link on the thread you posted on.   you should never counterclaim that exposes you to further cost and rarely succeeds esp if they disc' the claim always best to state in a sep letter you will be seeking costs esp loss of days wages at £90 which most judges allow.   as for an sar, its p'haps always better to issue a cpr 31:14 too or in replacement of, an sar.   well done on your important win
    • My wife has directed me to post on this thread as I have just successfully won against these charlatans   My hearing date was all set at my local court for 31st October 2019 all defence papers were filed and served and frankly I was really looking forward to it! This morning I received a letter from BW legal stating in a one line response that I was to take this letter as a notice of discontinuance whereby the claimant KBT (armtrac) discontinues all of the claim. I am beyond disappointed that I didn’t get my chance to see these idiots across a desk! And that’s it I don’t appear to be able to take this further? I now realise I should of had the courage of my convictions and faith in the advice of others to issue a counterclaim! What I have now in my possession is a file of information which would be Gold-dust to the next person in my position! I feel like I would be able to get some sort of closure if I could pass some of this wisdom on but there are many posters here already and every case is different in its own way The key points in my defence were as follows and useful to anyone ‘caught’ at Sandy Acres. Keep the original parking ticket you purchased and send a copy to KBT with a covering letter ASAP do not identify the driver at any stage of the process!!!!  The blue sign uses the word penalty which is contrary to the IPC codes of practice  The red and white sign has a café open sign in front of it  which obscures it from the drivers view both available to download via Google maps Check the date you receive NTK mine was 71 days Do an SAR and you will get back the pictures of the alleged offence in my case they were of such poor quality you could not tell which way up the ticket was in the photo and in no image they held was there a picture showing the ticket and the vehicle numberplate. They offered no other evidence. Pretty soon you will see the money is being sought escalate until they no longer match the figure on the NTK even if it is sent within 56 days When you see a breakdown of costs for the money being sought it will ultimately include legal costs, typically £60 that the solicitor knows cannot be recovered in Small Claims Court. Personally I am now considering reporting BW legal to the law society or solicitors ombudsman for being party to a process which is fundamentally dishonest, an abuse of process, and a complete waste of court resources?   i am happy to help anyone who needs assistance but rest assured that their case against you relies on you caving in and paying, they have no plan B but will try and make you doubt your ability to defend yourself.   Dont worry about small claims Court, it isn’t crown court, just an office with 3 desks and certainly less stressful than a job interview or meeting with the bank and less at stake.   I got to one week from my court date and they gave up!
  • Our picks

tezza1234

Bedroom Tax

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2242 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I just wanted to start a thread to get everyone views, the bedroom tax has everyone talking and many have different views on it, Please have your view, we are all entitled to our own opinion, please keep the thread sensible.

 

Ok my personal view is the bedroom tax is in principle a good idea, for those who want/choose to stay in larger LA housing than is required, of course its not working like that, people cant downsize as there are no properties, it is hitting the vulnerable and this is just wrong.

 

My other problem is the bedroom tax does not apply to persons of a pensionable age or anyone claiming any sort of disability, again each case may be individual but arnt most of the larger HA properties filled by elders in there 60's 70's 80's ect.... who refuse to move, yet they are exempt from this tax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isnt a tax. People just arent receiving tax payers money for something they dont need. Why should other people, many who have to pay high mortgage costs, pay for someone else to have an extra bedroom. Saying that, people shouldnt have to pay this "tax" if they have asked to be rehoused because of it but theres nothing available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isnt a tax. People just arent receiving tax payers money for something they dont need. Why should other people, many who have to pay high mortgage costs, pay for someone else to have an extra bedroom. Saying that, people shouldnt have to pay this "tax" if they have asked to be rehoused because of it but theres nothing available.

 

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? There just isn't enough social housing to rehouse everyone. So I certainly agree that taxpayers should not be funding huge houses for people whose kids have left home, for example, but the implementation of this thing stinks to high heaven.

 

What the government has done is create perverse incentives. "Over-occupying" social tenants will end up in private rented flats which cost more, and they'll claim HB/LHA to cover it. This will, of course, free up social housing for people who are a bit better off. Which makes no sense at all, neither for the tenants nor the taxpayer.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, bedroom tax does apply to the disabled, some might get additional help with a dHP if a room's been converted or if they are a couple and need two bedrooms due to equipment (for instance a hospital bed, hoist etc), but the disabled are not exempt - only pensioners.


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? There just isn't enough social housing to rehouse everyone. So I certainly agree that taxpayers should not be funding huge houses for people whose kids have left home, for example, but the implementation of this thing stinks to high heaven.

 

What the government has done is create perverse incentives. "Over-occupying" social tenants will end up in private rented flats which cost more, and they'll claim HB/LHA to cover it. This will, of course, free up social housing for people who are a bit better off. Which makes no sense at all, neither for the tenants nor the taxpayer.

 

Yes, cynically I sometimes wonder if this a policy with the purpose of increasing fodder for private landlords.


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tezza1234, I can name a number of disabilities/conditions that require an extra room for treatments. For example Renal patients who have dialysis at home, and I am sure I would not want to sleep next to someone with obstructive sleep apnoea whilst they are C.P.A.P. There are many other reasons. There are a number of reasons for not moving elderly people out of there homes including financial/physical and psychological were moving them would prove to be very costly. I know A number of single parents would would love to down size but as goodatresearch states there are too few available. Until the powers provides the required amount of housing needed this "TAX" is unfair and cruel because it hits hardest the people who cannot pay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they should have given people longer to find a smaller property,the fact is their isnt many one bedroom flats about,nor social housing,people seem to be getting penalised for being left in a bigger house when their family members move out etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long can anyone be given, until more social housing is built ? Me thinks one would be waiting a very long time..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well consumer dude,thats the way they should have done it! better than just imposing it on people with nothing to fall back on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is grossly unfair that pensioners are exempt. Clearly their vote is more important than a disabled persons vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be done on a case by case basis, imo. In the sense that the disabled person who needs a room for medical equipment, can't sleep in the same room as their partner, etc. should be exempt. (because it's not a choice - it's a need) But the person who can downsize and chooses not to, should have to pay the tax.

 

Wasn't one of the arguments for pensioners not paying the tax because they can't increase their income? That's also true of many carers and disabled people too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly something had to be done. to many families are living in over occupied houses with no chance of getting a property to suit their needs. while the government are paying rents on houses under occupied. we have a lady in the next road living on her own in a three bed property. openly tells people it pays her to not work. council have tried on many occasions to rehouse her. but she refuses point blank to move.

 

while my next door neighbour who owns her own home is now selling hers now her children have grown up and married and her husband passed away. her reason is because she says the house is to big for her to maintain. she would love to stop but its time to move on


:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why penalise everyone for it? Not everyone is in a position to move and there certainly isn't enough smaller properties for everyone who needs one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is grossly unfair that pensioners are exempt. Clearly their vote is more important than a disabled persons vote.

 

I look down my street and see a number of houses that have been adapted by the council at great expense to enable pensioners to live in their own homes. It seems financial madness to move them now. Its just not financial nearly all the care given is unpaid mostly by family and friends. This "Tax" was not thought out in the first place, yes we do need housing for families but what will be the cost to society if we do not consider the individual cirumstances

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no different to LHA and private renters, just makes the playing field fair for those that cannot get social housing but are in the same boat as those that can i.e. you get the help for the rooms you actually need.

 

Obviously those with carers etc needed looking at under different criteria, but the average Joe has similar if not the same needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's no different to LHA and private renters, just makes the playing field fair for those that cannot get social housing but are in the same boat as those that can i.e. you get the help for the rooms you actually need.

 

Obviously those with carers etc needed looking at under different criteria, but the average Joe has similar if not the same needs.

 

Would agree with above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sadly something had to be done. to many families are living in over occupied houses with no chance of getting a property to suit their needs. while the government are paying rents on houses under occupied. we have a lady in the next road living on her own in a three bed property. openly tells people it pays her to not work. council have tried on many occasions to rehouse her. but she refuses point blank to move.

 

while my next door neighbour who owns her own home is now selling hers now her children have grown up and married and her husband passed away. her reason is because she says the house is to big for her to maintain. she would love to stop but its time to move on

 

Something needed to be done, sure. Provision of affordable and available housing would have helped a lot. Serious reversal of the rules that forced councils to sell their houses at well below market value and then forbade them from using the meager profits to build new housing stock, that would have been a good idea.

 

But if (charitably) we assume that the bedroom tax is merely incompetence, rather than malice and caprice, we're left with the old "something must be done" problem:

 

  1. Something must be done.
  2. This is something.
  3. Therefore we must do this.

I believe it was known in Yes Minister as the "Politicians' Syllogism".


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying this is just equalising the social housing situation with the private rental one by paying only for bedrooms needed is not true. If someone has a housing need for a 2 bed property they are allowed to claim the maximum LHA for a 2 house if privately renting, if they find a 4 bed house at or under that LHA allowance then every single penny of the rent for a 4 bed property is paid, despite their need only being for a 2 bed. That is totally different to the situation now for those in social housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite so, abc, they are two completely different beasties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...