Three rooms in use but Basildon tenant still having to pay bedroom tax

Dave Murray, founder of Basildon Residents Against Bedroom tax and Tony Livesey campaigning outside the Basildon Centre

Dave Murray, founder of Basildon Residents Against Bedroom tax and Tony Livesey campaigning outside the Basildon Centre

First published in Echo News Exclusive by

A MUM who has her son and brother living in her three-bedroom house has been told she must continue to pay bedroom tax despite none of the rooms being empty.

Housing bosses at Basildon Council have told Jamie-Lee Hopwood, 23, of Frettons, Basildon, she falls into the “spare bedroom”

category.

The council said her brother, 14, and son Maxwell, seven months, can share bedrooms despite the 13-year age difference.

It means she is being charged an extra £60 a month for the “extra” bedroom.

It comes as figures obtained by the Echo reveal only 48 people of 1,500 in Basildon have been downsized following the introduction of the Spare Room Subsidy in April, which slashes housing benefit for social housing tenants deemed to have an extra bedroom.

Campaigners have repeatedly called on the “unfair” tax to be scrapped because of situations like Ms Hopwood’s, while another resident has come forward to hit out at the reforms, which will see her benefit slashed a day after she was deemed to have an extra room.

Ms Hopwood said: “Why should my son’s uncle share with him in a room when he’s at a point in his life when he’s doing GCSEs?

“I wouldn’t expect to share a room with my auntie, yet I’m being told that I have to pay £15 extra a week.

“I struggle to pay catch up with rent at the minute anyway and I don’t think that is right when they ask me to pay for a bedroom that isn’t spare.”

Ms Hopwood’s situation is set to change later this year because she is pregnant.

Housing bosses have said she will no longer be classed as having a “spare room” when her new baby arrives in the summer.

But Ms Horwood questioned why it took for her to have another baby for her to stop being penalised.

Leanne Smith, 42, of Merryland, Laindon, had her son move out on February 3 – but was told she will be hit by the tax just a day later by housing officials at Basildon Council.

She said: “I was told that I would have my benefit cut 24 hours after my son moved out and I had an extra room. Moving in that time is just impossible.

“I’ve found a place to downsize and have filled out my forms, but this wasn’t good enough. I won’t be able to move for a couple of months and this will put me in arrears – and you can’t move if you’re in debt.

Comments (59)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:47pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

The irrationality of this dog dinner of a tax will be wondered at in the future...its a sheer embarrassment to the country..probably contrived by chinless wonder tories over a boozy 15 course lunch..
The irrationality of this dog dinner of a tax will be wondered at in the future...its a sheer embarrassment to the country..probably contrived by chinless wonder tories over a boozy 15 course lunch.. ThisYear
  • Score: 2

6:47pm Thu 6 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

i suppose it would be too much to ask the father of these children to make a contribution or more likely father unknown. the brother should live with his parents. problem solved
i suppose it would be too much to ask the father of these children to make a contribution or more likely father unknown. the brother should live with his parents. problem solved profondo asbo
  • Score: 25

7:27pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Idontknowy says...

profondo asbo wrote:
i suppose it would be too much to ask the father of these children to make a contribution or more likely father unknown. the brother should live with his parents. problem solved
Don't know the circumstances why the woman's brother is living with her. There might be valid reasons why he's there.

All in all this "bedroom" tax is another spiteful outrage hitting at, in the main, vulnerable people.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: i suppose it would be too much to ask the father of these children to make a contribution or more likely father unknown. the brother should live with his parents. problem solved[/p][/quote]Don't know the circumstances why the woman's brother is living with her. There might be valid reasons why he's there. All in all this "bedroom" tax is another spiteful outrage hitting at, in the main, vulnerable people. Idontknowy
  • Score: 18

7:47pm Thu 6 Mar 14

donttalkunlessuknow says...

the reason she has her brother is due to there mum passing away... get a grip people

i would not want my kids to share with there uncle, esp which hes 13 and going through puberty etc
the reason she has her brother is due to there mum passing away... get a grip people i would not want my kids to share with there uncle, esp which hes 13 and going through puberty etc donttalkunlessuknow
  • Score: 42

7:52pm Thu 6 Mar 14

just me 29 says...

Excuse me Profondo, How about knowing the facts before u pass judgement on people u know nothing about!! That's my neice ur stereo typing for one Yes she does know who the father to her baby is and secondly my sister past away 2 years ago and my niece took full custody of my nephew so that is why they live together....anyway this is the problem its the council telling people its okay that a 15yr old and a 8month baby sharing when there is no need and then charging bedroom tax......
Excuse me Profondo, How about knowing the facts before u pass judgement on people u know nothing about!! That's my neice ur stereo typing for one Yes she does know who the father to her baby is and secondly my sister past away 2 years ago and my niece took full custody of my nephew so that is why they live together....anyway this is the problem its the council telling people its okay that a 15yr old and a 8month baby sharing when there is no need and then charging bedroom tax...... just me 29
  • Score: 45

7:55pm Thu 6 Mar 14

donttalkunlessuknow says...

donttalkunlessuknow wrote:
the reason she has her brother is due to there mum passing away... get a grip people

i would not want my kids to share with there uncle, esp which hes 13 and going through puberty etc
opps 14 me bad
[quote][p][bold]donttalkunlessuknow[/bold] wrote: the reason she has her brother is due to there mum passing away... get a grip people i would not want my kids to share with there uncle, esp which hes 13 and going through puberty etc[/p][/quote]opps 14 me bad donttalkunlessuknow
  • Score: 7

7:59pm Thu 6 Mar 14

shooting star says...

profondo asbo wrote:
i suppose it would be too much to ask the father of these children to make a contribution or more likely father unknown. the brother should live with his parents. problem solved
I suppose it would be to much to ask for you to use a brain cell for something constructive other then jumping on conclusion on other peoples business.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: i suppose it would be too much to ask the father of these children to make a contribution or more likely father unknown. the brother should live with his parents. problem solved[/p][/quote]I suppose it would be to much to ask for you to use a brain cell for something constructive other then jumping on conclusion on other peoples business. shooting star
  • Score: 6

8:01pm Thu 6 Mar 14

GrumpyofLeigh says...

Is that sub-letting then?
Is that sub-letting then? GrumpyofLeigh
  • Score: -14

8:09pm Thu 6 Mar 14

just me 29 says...

No my neice has taken over tenacy of the property. Do u really think the council would let them remain in the house after 2 years!!
No my neice has taken over tenacy of the property. Do u really think the council would let them remain in the house after 2 years!! just me 29
  • Score: 15

8:09pm Thu 6 Mar 14

donttalkunlessuknow says...

GrumpyofLeigh wrote:
Is that sub-letting then?
how???? cause this lady took custody of her brother doing her mum what was always asked from her mum when she sadly passed AWAY...
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyofLeigh[/bold] wrote: Is that sub-letting then?[/p][/quote]how???? cause this lady took custody of her brother doing her mum what was always asked from her mum when she sadly passed AWAY... donttalkunlessuknow
  • Score: 12

8:59pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Scott-S says...

I came here disgusted at the council and their stupidity but it appears there are some commenters that surprise me more than that. You don't know this person or their situation. You're what's wrong with this country not the perceived stereotype you was portraying
I came here disgusted at the council and their stupidity but it appears there are some commenters that surprise me more than that. You don't know this person or their situation. You're what's wrong with this country not the perceived stereotype you was portraying Scott-S
  • Score: 20

9:14pm Thu 6 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

donttalkunlessuknow wrote:
the reason she has her brother is due to there mum passing away... get a grip people

i would not want my kids to share with there uncle, esp which hes 13 and going through puberty etc
i'm sorry but the taxpayer says "no". the third bedroom is a luxury
[quote][p][bold]donttalkunlessuknow[/bold] wrote: the reason she has her brother is due to there mum passing away... get a grip people i would not want my kids to share with there uncle, esp which hes 13 and going through puberty etc[/p][/quote]i'm sorry but the taxpayer says "no". the third bedroom is a luxury profondo asbo
  • Score: -6

9:18pm Thu 6 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

shooting star wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
i suppose it would be too much to ask the father of these children to make a contribution or more likely father unknown. the brother should live with his parents. problem solved
I suppose it would be to much to ask for you to use a brain cell for something constructive other then jumping on conclusion on other peoples business.
it's the taxpayers business i'm afraid. if you go to the newspaper you ask to be tried in the court of public opinion.
[quote][p][bold]shooting star[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: i suppose it would be too much to ask the father of these children to make a contribution or more likely father unknown. the brother should live with his parents. problem solved[/p][/quote]I suppose it would be to much to ask for you to use a brain cell for something constructive other then jumping on conclusion on other peoples business.[/p][/quote]it's the taxpayers business i'm afraid. if you go to the newspaper you ask to be tried in the court of public opinion. profondo asbo
  • Score: 27

9:19pm Thu 6 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

Scott-S wrote:
I came here disgusted at the council and their stupidity but it appears there are some commenters that surprise me more than that. You don't know this person or their situation. You're what's wrong with this country not the perceived stereotype you was portraying
another member of the extended family?
[quote][p][bold]Scott-S[/bold] wrote: I came here disgusted at the council and their stupidity but it appears there are some commenters that surprise me more than that. You don't know this person or their situation. You're what's wrong with this country not the perceived stereotype you was portraying[/p][/quote]another member of the extended family? profondo asbo
  • Score: 4

9:20pm Thu 6 Mar 14

just me 29 says...

U know nothing about the circumstances so go comment somewhere else yh!!
U know nothing about the circumstances so go comment somewhere else yh!! just me 29
  • Score: -26

9:30pm Thu 6 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

just me 29 wrote:
U know nothing about the circumstances so go comment somewhere else yh!!
you do. so why not put the case to the echo readers?
[quote][p][bold]just me 29[/bold] wrote: U know nothing about the circumstances so go comment somewhere else yh!![/p][/quote]you do. so why not put the case to the echo readers? profondo asbo
  • Score: 17

9:49pm Thu 6 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

Idontknowy wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
i suppose it would be too much to ask the father of these children to make a contribution or more likely father unknown. the brother should live with his parents. problem solved
Don't know the circumstances why the woman's brother is living with her. There might be valid reasons why he's there.

All in all this "bedroom" tax is another spiteful outrage hitting at, in the main, vulnerable people.
spare a thought for the poor, vulnerable taxpayer
[quote][p][bold]Idontknowy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: i suppose it would be too much to ask the father of these children to make a contribution or more likely father unknown. the brother should live with his parents. problem solved[/p][/quote]Don't know the circumstances why the woman's brother is living with her. There might be valid reasons why he's there. All in all this "bedroom" tax is another spiteful outrage hitting at, in the main, vulnerable people.[/p][/quote]spare a thought for the poor, vulnerable taxpayer profondo asbo
  • Score: 20

9:49pm Thu 6 Mar 14

emcee says...

profondo asbo wrote:
donttalkunlessuknow wrote:
the reason she has her brother is due to there mum passing away... get a grip people

i would not want my kids to share with there uncle, esp which hes 13 and going through puberty etc
i'm sorry but the taxpayer says "no". the third bedroom is a luxury
Not this taxpayer, I'm afraid. I am on the side of the lady in this instance.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]donttalkunlessuknow[/bold] wrote: the reason she has her brother is due to there mum passing away... get a grip people i would not want my kids to share with there uncle, esp which hes 13 and going through puberty etc[/p][/quote]i'm sorry but the taxpayer says "no". the third bedroom is a luxury[/p][/quote]Not this taxpayer, I'm afraid. I am on the side of the lady in this instance. emcee
  • Score: -2

1:15am Fri 7 Mar 14

wiggiwiggins@blueyonder.co.uk says...

just me 29 wrote:
Excuse me Profondo, How about knowing the facts before u pass judgement on people u know nothing about!! That's my neice ur stereo typing for one Yes she does know who the father to her baby is and secondly my sister past away 2 years ago and my niece took full custody of my nephew so that is why they live together....anyway this is the problem its the council telling people its okay that a 15yr old and a 8month baby sharing when there is no need and then charging bedroom tax......
We will never stop nosey jealous people from judging us because this is what they've done, not knowing the full circumstances but you shouldn't be justifying yourself/family to anyone.
[quote][p][bold]just me 29[/bold] wrote: Excuse me Profondo, How about knowing the facts before u pass judgement on people u know nothing about!! That's my neice ur stereo typing for one Yes she does know who the father to her baby is and secondly my sister past away 2 years ago and my niece took full custody of my nephew so that is why they live together....anyway this is the problem its the council telling people its okay that a 15yr old and a 8month baby sharing when there is no need and then charging bedroom tax......[/p][/quote]We will never stop nosey jealous people from judging us because this is what they've done, not knowing the full circumstances but you shouldn't be justifying yourself/family to anyone. wiggiwiggins@blueyonder.co.uk
  • Score: -7

1:15am Fri 7 Mar 14

wiggiwiggins@blueyonder.co.uk says...

just me 29 wrote:
Excuse me Profondo, How about knowing the facts before u pass judgement on people u know nothing about!! That's my neice ur stereo typing for one Yes she does know who the father to her baby is and secondly my sister past away 2 years ago and my niece took full custody of my nephew so that is why they live together....anyway this is the problem its the council telling people its okay that a 15yr old and a 8month baby sharing when there is no need and then charging bedroom tax......
We will never stop nosey jealous people from judging us because this is what they've done, not knowing the full circumstances but you shouldn't be justifying yourself/family to anyone.
[quote][p][bold]just me 29[/bold] wrote: Excuse me Profondo, How about knowing the facts before u pass judgement on people u know nothing about!! That's my neice ur stereo typing for one Yes she does know who the father to her baby is and secondly my sister past away 2 years ago and my niece took full custody of my nephew so that is why they live together....anyway this is the problem its the council telling people its okay that a 15yr old and a 8month baby sharing when there is no need and then charging bedroom tax......[/p][/quote]We will never stop nosey jealous people from judging us because this is what they've done, not knowing the full circumstances but you shouldn't be justifying yourself/family to anyone. wiggiwiggins@blueyonder.co.uk
  • Score: -7

8:40am Fri 7 Mar 14

angryofessex says...

"Ms Horwood questioned why it took for her to have another baby for her to stop being penalised".
"Ms Horwood questioned why it took for her to have another baby for her to stop being penalised". angryofessex
  • Score: 7

8:47am Fri 7 Mar 14

Idontknowy says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Idontknowy wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
i suppose it would be too much to ask the father of these children to make a contribution or more likely father unknown. the brother should live with his parents. problem solved
Don't know the circumstances why the woman's brother is living with her. There might be valid reasons why he's there.

All in all this "bedroom" tax is another spiteful outrage hitting at, in the main, vulnerable people.
spare a thought for the poor, vulnerable taxpayer
I am one of the taxpayers and have been all my life. Far rather support a woman who is caring enough to look after her 14 year old brother than put him in a home which would cost thousands of pounds per week usually being paid to some profit making organisation
There are far more things I would rather my tax wasn't used for in this country
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Idontknowy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: i suppose it would be too much to ask the father of these children to make a contribution or more likely father unknown. the brother should live with his parents. problem solved[/p][/quote]Don't know the circumstances why the woman's brother is living with her. There might be valid reasons why he's there. All in all this "bedroom" tax is another spiteful outrage hitting at, in the main, vulnerable people.[/p][/quote]spare a thought for the poor, vulnerable taxpayer[/p][/quote]I am one of the taxpayers and have been all my life. Far rather support a woman who is caring enough to look after her 14 year old brother than put him in a home which would cost thousands of pounds per week usually being paid to some profit making organisation There are far more things I would rather my tax wasn't used for in this country Idontknowy
  • Score: 40

12:26pm Fri 7 Mar 14

shooting star says...

profondo asbo wrote:
shooting star wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
i suppose it would be too much to ask the father of these children to make a contribution or more likely father unknown. the brother should live with his parents. problem solved
I suppose it would be to much to ask for you to use a brain cell for something constructive other then jumping on conclusion on other peoples business.
it's the taxpayers business i'm afraid. if you go to the newspaper you ask to be tried in the court of public opinion.
Its not your business though to assume father unknown or to assume you can solve the problem by sending a 15 yr old boy to parents who dont exist. It is this not so logical kind of thinking that got this country in the mess its in. You are showing the exact compassion as government. "problem solved" Thats what the government must say every time they sting the little people..thats people like you, me and Mrs Hopwood.. so they can pay for their 2nd homes. "Get the tax payer to pay it problem solved" Do they care?! NO they dont. Have your taxes dropped now all these 1000's are paying for their bedrooms?! NO they havent. Go figure..
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shooting star[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: i suppose it would be too much to ask the father of these children to make a contribution or more likely father unknown. the brother should live with his parents. problem solved[/p][/quote]I suppose it would be to much to ask for you to use a brain cell for something constructive other then jumping on conclusion on other peoples business.[/p][/quote]it's the taxpayers business i'm afraid. if you go to the newspaper you ask to be tried in the court of public opinion.[/p][/quote]Its not your business though to assume father unknown or to assume you can solve the problem by sending a 15 yr old boy to parents who dont exist. It is this not so logical kind of thinking that got this country in the mess its in. You are showing the exact compassion as government. "problem solved" Thats what the government must say every time they sting the little people..thats people like you, me and Mrs Hopwood.. so they can pay for their 2nd homes. "Get the tax payer to pay it problem solved" Do they care?! NO they dont. Have your taxes dropped now all these 1000's are paying for their bedrooms?! NO they havent. Go figure.. shooting star
  • Score: 7

12:52pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Jhopwood says...

Just to set you all straight I am this person in question! I am married to the father of my child and unborn, my mum passed away so we took my brother and sister in to our care, my sister now lives with her father but my brother still lives with us! I now have the tenancy in my name as I won succession (not that it's anything to do with you) The reason I'm not happy with the bedroom tax is because they're uncle and nephew and a 14 yr age gap! It's just wrong and I didn't get pregnant to stop being penalised that was miswrote, I fell pregnant by accident before I had bedroom tax added!! The council said to me it will stop when I give birth but it's not the point I shouldn't be having to pay bedroom tax when all rooms are in use and with perfect reason to be!!
Just to set you all straight I am this person in question! I am married to the father of my child and unborn, my mum passed away so we took my brother and sister in to our care, my sister now lives with her father but my brother still lives with us! I now have the tenancy in my name as I won succession (not that it's anything to do with you) The reason I'm not happy with the bedroom tax is because they're uncle and nephew and a 14 yr age gap! It's just wrong and I didn't get pregnant to stop being penalised that was miswrote, I fell pregnant by accident before I had bedroom tax added!! The council said to me it will stop when I give birth but it's not the point I shouldn't be having to pay bedroom tax when all rooms are in use and with perfect reason to be!! Jhopwood
  • Score: 22

1:47pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Kim Gandy says...

ThisYear wrote:
The irrationality of this dog dinner of a tax will be wondered at in the future...its a sheer embarrassment to the country..probably contrived by chinless wonder tories over a boozy 15 course lunch..
"But Ms Horwood questioned why it took for her to have another baby for her to stop being penalised."

So she got pregnant so she could get escape this situation? That's how it reads. And is this a solution?

Oh and the chinless wonder labour lot enjoy just as many boozy lunches. That said, it seems to be the privilege of SOME county councillors at County Hall in Chelmsford. I remember one UKIP councillor protesting against it actually.

How much DO you actually know about councils, councillors and the way things are run? Or do you limit your "knowledge" to what you read in the Echo and on here? And of course the endless source of scurrilous nonsense provided by nitwit groups run by the soapdodgers of HNH and EDLnews.

Must say, I've never seen you at council meetings so you can't be that concerned about all these things.

Still, it might blow your cover..

The only thumbs up you get are from your multitude of alter ego cronies that operate under your other pseudonyms.

Actually there is a three bedroomed bungalow in Pitsea currently being occupied by Chucky, a sort of cross party "mascot" and self appointed favourite of Nigel Farage. Funnily enough she also claimed to be a favourite of Stephen Metcalfe - something else that also never happened.

She is STILL occupying this place despite living alone in it. And there are others like her who go unnoticed.

And what of the ILLEGAL occupation of Oak Lane. But then, we are not allowed to comment on that are we? Because of course you advocate the old "one rule for one and another for another" rule don't you? But you don't mind paying council tax for the policing/admin/court costs etc etc..

Tell me, how does THAT work? Seems a bit of a contradiction to me.

If like me, you turned your attention OFF this website at some point and got actively involved, you would know where ALL the real culprits are. And you would be able to acquaint yourself with facts and truth. Instead of conjecture, lies and rumour.

Not everybody you disapprove of is a Tory you know. Other such creatures do exist.

There are some VERY interesting things that go on among the Labourites but of course you wouldn't notice because you cherry pick the details that suit you. And you NEVER attend council meetings.

Just saying...
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: The irrationality of this dog dinner of a tax will be wondered at in the future...its a sheer embarrassment to the country..probably contrived by chinless wonder tories over a boozy 15 course lunch..[/p][/quote]"But Ms Horwood questioned why it took for her to have another baby for her to stop being penalised." So she got pregnant so she could get escape this situation? That's how it reads. And is this a solution? Oh and the chinless wonder labour lot enjoy just as many boozy lunches. That said, it seems to be the privilege of SOME county councillors at County Hall in Chelmsford. I remember one UKIP councillor protesting against it actually. How much DO you actually know about councils, councillors and the way things are run? Or do you limit your "knowledge" to what you read in the Echo and on here? And of course the endless source of scurrilous nonsense provided by nitwit groups run by the soapdodgers of HNH and EDLnews. Must say, I've never seen you at council meetings so you can't be that concerned about all these things. Still, it might blow your cover.. The only thumbs up you get are from your multitude of alter ego cronies that operate under your other pseudonyms. Actually there is a three bedroomed bungalow in Pitsea currently being occupied by Chucky, a sort of cross party "mascot" and self appointed favourite of Nigel Farage. Funnily enough she also claimed to be a favourite of Stephen Metcalfe - something else that also never happened. She is STILL occupying this place despite living alone in it. And there are others like her who go unnoticed. And what of the ILLEGAL occupation of Oak Lane. But then, we are not allowed to comment on that are we? Because of course you advocate the old "one rule for one and another for another" rule don't you? But you don't mind paying council tax for the policing/admin/court costs etc etc.. Tell me, how does THAT work? Seems a bit of a contradiction to me. If like me, you turned your attention OFF this website at some point and got actively involved, you would know where ALL the real culprits are. And you would be able to acquaint yourself with facts and truth. Instead of conjecture, lies and rumour. Not everybody you disapprove of is a Tory you know. Other such creatures do exist. There are some VERY interesting things that go on among the Labourites but of course you wouldn't notice because you cherry pick the details that suit you. And you NEVER attend council meetings. Just saying... Kim Gandy
  • Score: -5

1:54pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Kim Gandy says...

Scott-S wrote:
I came here disgusted at the council and their stupidity but it appears there are some commenters that surprise me more than that. You don't know this person or their situation. You're what's wrong with this country not the perceived stereotype you was portraying
They don't have to know you on here, or know anything about you... but they can fill in the blanks and make it up as they go along.

According to SOME of these twerps, I eat babies for breakfast and burn old people at the stake.

However, they are minority - and some operate under multiple pseudonyms. They are delusional and don't deal in facts. I do. And question them. And the way the Echo sometimes presents things can distort or leave out truths which is why I asked, did this lady get pregnant to resolve the situation she is in?

Not accusing, just asking. And I ask because we do not have all the facts surrounding this situation.

Suffice it to say, there are some who abuse the system and there are a lot of others who are victims of it.

We never ever know the real truth.

But be aware of the fact that some of the people loose on this website have no lives and no understanding of anything they write about. They don't research, attend meetings, get involved, stand for election or anything of that ilk.

Some of us have done all of the above.
Some of these above are mere keyboard warriors.
[quote][p][bold]Scott-S[/bold] wrote: I came here disgusted at the council and their stupidity but it appears there are some commenters that surprise me more than that. You don't know this person or their situation. You're what's wrong with this country not the perceived stereotype you was portraying[/p][/quote]They don't have to know you on here, or know anything about you... but they can fill in the blanks and make it up as they go along. According to SOME of these twerps, I eat babies for breakfast and burn old people at the stake. However, they are minority - and some operate under multiple pseudonyms. They are delusional and don't deal in facts. I do. And question them. And the way the Echo sometimes presents things can distort or leave out truths which is why I asked, did this lady get pregnant to resolve the situation she is in? Not accusing, just asking. And I ask because we do not have all the facts surrounding this situation. Suffice it to say, there are some who abuse the system and there are a lot of others who are victims of it. We never ever know the real truth. But be aware of the fact that some of the people loose on this website have no lives and no understanding of anything they write about. They don't research, attend meetings, get involved, stand for election or anything of that ilk. Some of us have done all of the above. Some of these above are mere keyboard warriors. Kim Gandy
  • Score: -13

1:57pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Kim Gandy says...

profondo asbo wrote:
just me 29 wrote:
U know nothing about the circumstances so go comment somewhere else yh!!
you do. so why not put the case to the echo readers?
What you mean like you?

You don't know me from Adam yet you've had me hung, drawn and quartered several times over on here.

I think not eh.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]just me 29[/bold] wrote: U know nothing about the circumstances so go comment somewhere else yh!![/p][/quote]you do. so why not put the case to the echo readers?[/p][/quote]What you mean like you? You don't know me from Adam yet you've had me hung, drawn and quartered several times over on here. I think not eh. Kim Gandy
  • Score: -17

2:03pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Kim Gandy says...

Jhopwood wrote:
Just to set you all straight I am this person in question! I am married to the father of my child and unborn, my mum passed away so we took my brother and sister in to our care, my sister now lives with her father but my brother still lives with us! I now have the tenancy in my name as I won succession (not that it's anything to do with you) The reason I'm not happy with the bedroom tax is because they're uncle and nephew and a 14 yr age gap! It's just wrong and I didn't get pregnant to stop being penalised that was miswrote, I fell pregnant by accident before I had bedroom tax added!! The council said to me it will stop when I give birth but it's not the point I shouldn't be having to pay bedroom tax when all rooms are in use and with perfect reason to be!!
Just got to your comment after finding my way through lots of other rubbish. What these numpties don't realise is that it is often the way things are worded in newspapers that make it look a certain way.

It can be read in a way that you did get pregnant to solve the situation. I'm not saying you did but this is what happens when things go in the newspaper. You open yourself up to all manner of nutters. And believe me there are some right ones on this website. They will attack you just for commenting on the weather.

My main assertion is that there ARE people in the system that are still occupying three bedroomed houses like the one I quoted above who abuses her privileges. I am not allowed to name her but she is known to me. And she is now known to others.

You are right, you can't have kids of vastly different age groups sharing a bedroom. My 15 year old is doing GCSEs and I wouldn't like him sharing with a younger sibling or relative either.

And you should not be going through stress while pregnant.

However, regular visits to this page will raise your blood pressure.

I only come here to wind up the resident nutters. Just watch them down arrow this...

Love it!
[quote][p][bold]Jhopwood[/bold] wrote: Just to set you all straight I am this person in question! I am married to the father of my child and unborn, my mum passed away so we took my brother and sister in to our care, my sister now lives with her father but my brother still lives with us! I now have the tenancy in my name as I won succession (not that it's anything to do with you) The reason I'm not happy with the bedroom tax is because they're uncle and nephew and a 14 yr age gap! It's just wrong and I didn't get pregnant to stop being penalised that was miswrote, I fell pregnant by accident before I had bedroom tax added!! The council said to me it will stop when I give birth but it's not the point I shouldn't be having to pay bedroom tax when all rooms are in use and with perfect reason to be!![/p][/quote]Just got to your comment after finding my way through lots of other rubbish. What these numpties don't realise is that it is often the way things are worded in newspapers that make it look a certain way. It can be read in a way that you did get pregnant to solve the situation. I'm not saying you did but this is what happens when things go in the newspaper. You open yourself up to all manner of nutters. And believe me there are some right ones on this website. They will attack you just for commenting on the weather. My main assertion is that there ARE people in the system that are still occupying three bedroomed houses like the one I quoted above who abuses her privileges. I am not allowed to name her but she is known to me. And she is now known to others. You are right, you can't have kids of vastly different age groups sharing a bedroom. My 15 year old is doing GCSEs and I wouldn't like him sharing with a younger sibling or relative either. And you should not be going through stress while pregnant. However, regular visits to this page will raise your blood pressure. I only come here to wind up the resident nutters. Just watch them down arrow this... Love it! Kim Gandy
  • Score: 6

2:23pm Fri 7 Mar 14

uncle_jarvis says...

People aren't 'charged' bedroom tax - it's a deduction from benefits.

An important distinction.
People aren't 'charged' bedroom tax - it's a deduction from benefits. An important distinction. uncle_jarvis
  • Score: 19

4:21pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Living the La Vida Legra says...

Seems to me the that the council is right She has a spare room
Get your own house then you can separate rooms for the boys
Seems to me the that the council is right She has a spare room Get your own house then you can separate rooms for the boys Living the La Vida Legra
  • Score: 6

4:52pm Fri 7 Mar 14

I-say-you-say says...

Jhopwood wrote:
Just to set you all straight I am this person in question! I am married to the father of my child and unborn, my mum passed away so we took my brother and sister in to our care, my sister now lives with her father but my brother still lives with us! I now have the tenancy in my name as I won succession (not that it's anything to do with you) The reason I'm not happy with the bedroom tax is because they're uncle and nephew and a 14 yr age gap! It's just wrong and I didn't get pregnant to stop being penalised that was miswrote, I fell pregnant by accident before I had bedroom tax added!! The council said to me it will stop when I give birth but it's not the point I shouldn't be having to pay bedroom tax when all rooms are in use and with perfect reason to be!!
Firstly, well done on taking your family into care, condolences on the loss of your mother but congratulations on the good news of another little one.

I so sympathise with your situation and completely agree that it is wrong however please be aware that this is the Government NOT the Council who have made this ruling.

Have you applied for the discretionary payments that I believe are available? This could get you out of a hole until the new baby is born.

Alternatively, and without sounding rude, but is there any way your husband can get an extra job or hours at work to help pay a little towards them? I appreciate it's often easier said than done but it may be of some help (especially with another little one on the way!)
[quote][p][bold]Jhopwood[/bold] wrote: Just to set you all straight I am this person in question! I am married to the father of my child and unborn, my mum passed away so we took my brother and sister in to our care, my sister now lives with her father but my brother still lives with us! I now have the tenancy in my name as I won succession (not that it's anything to do with you) The reason I'm not happy with the bedroom tax is because they're uncle and nephew and a 14 yr age gap! It's just wrong and I didn't get pregnant to stop being penalised that was miswrote, I fell pregnant by accident before I had bedroom tax added!! The council said to me it will stop when I give birth but it's not the point I shouldn't be having to pay bedroom tax when all rooms are in use and with perfect reason to be!![/p][/quote]Firstly, well done on taking your family into care, condolences on the loss of your mother but congratulations on the good news of another little one. I so sympathise with your situation and completely agree that it is wrong however please be aware that this is the Government NOT the Council who have made this ruling. Have you applied for the discretionary payments that I believe are available? This could get you out of a hole until the new baby is born. Alternatively, and without sounding rude, but is there any way your husband can get an extra job or hours at work to help pay a little towards them? I appreciate it's often easier said than done but it may be of some help (especially with another little one on the way!) I-say-you-say
  • Score: 12

6:55pm Fri 7 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
The irrationality of this dog dinner of a tax will be wondered at in the future...its a sheer embarrassment to the country..probably contrived by chinless wonder tories over a boozy 15 course lunch..
"But Ms Horwood questioned why it took for her to have another baby for her to stop being penalised."

So she got pregnant so she could get escape this situation? That's how it reads. And is this a solution?

Oh and the chinless wonder labour lot enjoy just as many boozy lunches. That said, it seems to be the privilege of SOME county councillors at County Hall in Chelmsford. I remember one UKIP councillor protesting against it actually.

How much DO you actually know about councils, councillors and the way things are run? Or do you limit your "knowledge" to what you read in the Echo and on here? And of course the endless source of scurrilous nonsense provided by nitwit groups run by the soapdodgers of HNH and EDLnews.

Must say, I've never seen you at council meetings so you can't be that concerned about all these things.

Still, it might blow your cover..

The only thumbs up you get are from your multitude of alter ego cronies that operate under your other pseudonyms.

Actually there is a three bedroomed bungalow in Pitsea currently being occupied by Chucky, a sort of cross party "mascot" and self appointed favourite of Nigel Farage. Funnily enough she also claimed to be a favourite of Stephen Metcalfe - something else that also never happened.

She is STILL occupying this place despite living alone in it. And there are others like her who go unnoticed.

And what of the ILLEGAL occupation of Oak Lane. But then, we are not allowed to comment on that are we? Because of course you advocate the old "one rule for one and another for another" rule don't you? But you don't mind paying council tax for the policing/admin/court costs etc etc..

Tell me, how does THAT work? Seems a bit of a contradiction to me.

If like me, you turned your attention OFF this website at some point and got actively involved, you would know where ALL the real culprits are. And you would be able to acquaint yourself with facts and truth. Instead of conjecture, lies and rumour.

Not everybody you disapprove of is a Tory you know. Other such creatures do exist.

There are some VERY interesting things that go on among the Labourites but of course you wouldn't notice because you cherry pick the details that suit you. And you NEVER attend council meetings.

Just saying...
**So she got pregnant so she could get escape this situation? That's how it reads**

**do you limit your "knowledge" to what you read in the Echo and on here**

Kim you are a mess of contradictions..

Dale farm occupation? There doesn't seem to be one...are you living in the past...you want your past paraded on these boards?

Kim you are not a Tory, you are disowned by them, Ukip and even more extreme rightwing groups... and you know we know that...so stop your BS
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: The irrationality of this dog dinner of a tax will be wondered at in the future...its a sheer embarrassment to the country..probably contrived by chinless wonder tories over a boozy 15 course lunch..[/p][/quote]"But Ms Horwood questioned why it took for her to have another baby for her to stop being penalised." So she got pregnant so she could get escape this situation? That's how it reads. And is this a solution? Oh and the chinless wonder labour lot enjoy just as many boozy lunches. That said, it seems to be the privilege of SOME county councillors at County Hall in Chelmsford. I remember one UKIP councillor protesting against it actually. How much DO you actually know about councils, councillors and the way things are run? Or do you limit your "knowledge" to what you read in the Echo and on here? And of course the endless source of scurrilous nonsense provided by nitwit groups run by the soapdodgers of HNH and EDLnews. Must say, I've never seen you at council meetings so you can't be that concerned about all these things. Still, it might blow your cover.. The only thumbs up you get are from your multitude of alter ego cronies that operate under your other pseudonyms. Actually there is a three bedroomed bungalow in Pitsea currently being occupied by Chucky, a sort of cross party "mascot" and self appointed favourite of Nigel Farage. Funnily enough she also claimed to be a favourite of Stephen Metcalfe - something else that also never happened. She is STILL occupying this place despite living alone in it. And there are others like her who go unnoticed. And what of the ILLEGAL occupation of Oak Lane. But then, we are not allowed to comment on that are we? Because of course you advocate the old "one rule for one and another for another" rule don't you? But you don't mind paying council tax for the policing/admin/court costs etc etc.. Tell me, how does THAT work? Seems a bit of a contradiction to me. If like me, you turned your attention OFF this website at some point and got actively involved, you would know where ALL the real culprits are. And you would be able to acquaint yourself with facts and truth. Instead of conjecture, lies and rumour. Not everybody you disapprove of is a Tory you know. Other such creatures do exist. There are some VERY interesting things that go on among the Labourites but of course you wouldn't notice because you cherry pick the details that suit you. And you NEVER attend council meetings. Just saying...[/p][/quote]**So she got pregnant so she could get escape this situation? That's how it reads** **do you limit your "knowledge" to what you read in the Echo and on here** Kim you are a mess of contradictions.. Dale farm occupation? There doesn't seem to be one...are you living in the past...you want your past paraded on these boards? Kim you are not a Tory, you are disowned by them, Ukip and even more extreme rightwing groups... and you know we know that...so stop your BS ThisYear
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Fri 7 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
Scott-S wrote:
I came here disgusted at the council and their stupidity but it appears there are some commenters that surprise me more than that. You don't know this person or their situation. You're what's wrong with this country not the perceived stereotype you was portraying
They don't have to know you on here, or know anything about you... but they can fill in the blanks and make it up as they go along.

According to SOME of these twerps, I eat babies for breakfast and burn old people at the stake.

However, they are minority - and some operate under multiple pseudonyms. They are delusional and don't deal in facts. I do. And question them. And the way the Echo sometimes presents things can distort or leave out truths which is why I asked, did this lady get pregnant to resolve the situation she is in?

Not accusing, just asking. And I ask because we do not have all the facts surrounding this situation.

Suffice it to say, there are some who abuse the system and there are a lot of others who are victims of it.

We never ever know the real truth.

But be aware of the fact that some of the people loose on this website have no lives and no understanding of anything they write about. They don't research, attend meetings, get involved, stand for election or anything of that ilk.

Some of us have done all of the above.
Some of these above are mere keyboard warriors.
Kim how many political parties have you left..either under your own stream or theirs?
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scott-S[/bold] wrote: I came here disgusted at the council and their stupidity but it appears there are some commenters that surprise me more than that. You don't know this person or their situation. You're what's wrong with this country not the perceived stereotype you was portraying[/p][/quote]They don't have to know you on here, or know anything about you... but they can fill in the blanks and make it up as they go along. According to SOME of these twerps, I eat babies for breakfast and burn old people at the stake. However, they are minority - and some operate under multiple pseudonyms. They are delusional and don't deal in facts. I do. And question them. And the way the Echo sometimes presents things can distort or leave out truths which is why I asked, did this lady get pregnant to resolve the situation she is in? Not accusing, just asking. And I ask because we do not have all the facts surrounding this situation. Suffice it to say, there are some who abuse the system and there are a lot of others who are victims of it. We never ever know the real truth. But be aware of the fact that some of the people loose on this website have no lives and no understanding of anything they write about. They don't research, attend meetings, get involved, stand for election or anything of that ilk. Some of us have done all of the above. Some of these above are mere keyboard warriors.[/p][/quote]Kim how many political parties have you left..either under your own stream or theirs? ThisYear
  • Score: -11

7:00pm Fri 7 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
just me 29 wrote:
U know nothing about the circumstances so go comment somewhere else yh!!
you do. so why not put the case to the echo readers?
What you mean like you?

You don't know me from Adam yet you've had me hung, drawn and quartered several times over on here.

I think not eh.
Kim there is a dearth of information on the internet about you!

If it is lies why are you not suing?
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]just me 29[/bold] wrote: U know nothing about the circumstances so go comment somewhere else yh!![/p][/quote]you do. so why not put the case to the echo readers?[/p][/quote]What you mean like you? You don't know me from Adam yet you've had me hung, drawn and quartered several times over on here. I think not eh.[/p][/quote]Kim there is a dearth of information on the internet about you! If it is lies why are you not suing? ThisYear
  • Score: 3

7:02pm Fri 7 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Jhopwood wrote:
Just to set you all straight I am this person in question! I am married to the father of my child and unborn, my mum passed away so we took my brother and sister in to our care, my sister now lives with her father but my brother still lives with us! I now have the tenancy in my name as I won succession (not that it's anything to do with you) The reason I'm not happy with the bedroom tax is because they're uncle and nephew and a 14 yr age gap! It's just wrong and I didn't get pregnant to stop being penalised that was miswrote, I fell pregnant by accident before I had bedroom tax added!! The council said to me it will stop when I give birth but it's not the point I shouldn't be having to pay bedroom tax when all rooms are in use and with perfect reason to be!!
Ignore Kim Gandy...google her and that will tell you all you need to know.
[quote][p][bold]Jhopwood[/bold] wrote: Just to set you all straight I am this person in question! I am married to the father of my child and unborn, my mum passed away so we took my brother and sister in to our care, my sister now lives with her father but my brother still lives with us! I now have the tenancy in my name as I won succession (not that it's anything to do with you) The reason I'm not happy with the bedroom tax is because they're uncle and nephew and a 14 yr age gap! It's just wrong and I didn't get pregnant to stop being penalised that was miswrote, I fell pregnant by accident before I had bedroom tax added!! The council said to me it will stop when I give birth but it's not the point I shouldn't be having to pay bedroom tax when all rooms are in use and with perfect reason to be!![/p][/quote]Ignore Kim Gandy...google her and that will tell you all you need to know. ThisYear
  • Score: 2

8:10pm Fri 7 Mar 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

ThisYear wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
just me 29 wrote:
U know nothing about the circumstances so go comment somewhere else yh!!
you do. so why not put the case to the echo readers?
What you mean like you?

You don't know me from Adam yet you've had me hung, drawn and quartered several times over on here.

I think not eh.
Kim there is a dearth of information on the internet about you!

If it is lies why are you not suing?
Funny how she's gone quiet, probably out on the town in Rayleigh tonight..
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]just me 29[/bold] wrote: U know nothing about the circumstances so go comment somewhere else yh!![/p][/quote]you do. so why not put the case to the echo readers?[/p][/quote]What you mean like you? You don't know me from Adam yet you've had me hung, drawn and quartered several times over on here. I think not eh.[/p][/quote]Kim there is a dearth of information on the internet about you! If it is lies why are you not suing?[/p][/quote]Funny how she's gone quiet, probably out on the town in Rayleigh tonight.. carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: 3

8:56pm Fri 7 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

uncle_jarvis wrote:
People aren't 'charged' bedroom tax - it's a deduction from benefits.

An important distinction.
Not as important as it being the same result..less money!
[quote][p][bold]uncle_jarvis[/bold] wrote: People aren't 'charged' bedroom tax - it's a deduction from benefits. An important distinction.[/p][/quote]Not as important as it being the same result..less money! ThisYear
  • Score: -3

9:03pm Fri 7 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

carnmountyouknowitma
kessense
wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
just me 29 wrote:
U know nothing about the circumstances so go comment somewhere else yh!!
you do. so why not put the case to the echo readers?
What you mean like you?

You don't know me from Adam yet you've had me hung, drawn and quartered several times over on here.

I think not eh.
Kim there is a dearth of information on the internet about you!

If it is lies why are you not suing?
Funny how she's gone quiet, probably out on the town in Rayleigh tonight..
Hold onto your hat for more frustrated gibbering late tonight or early tomorrow
[quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]just me 29[/bold] wrote: U know nothing about the circumstances so go comment somewhere else yh!![/p][/quote]you do. so why not put the case to the echo readers?[/p][/quote]What you mean like you? You don't know me from Adam yet you've had me hung, drawn and quartered several times over on here. I think not eh.[/p][/quote]Kim there is a dearth of information on the internet about you! If it is lies why are you not suing?[/p][/quote]Funny how she's gone quiet, probably out on the town in Rayleigh tonight..[/p][/quote]Hold onto your hat for more frustrated gibbering late tonight or early tomorrow ThisYear
  • Score: 0

1:28am Sat 8 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

where is there any shred of personal responsibility on the part of the parents? brother can you spare an accident on purpose? lastyear...write a cheque for this mess...
where is there any shred of personal responsibility on the part of the parents? brother can you spare an accident on purpose? lastyear...write a cheque for this mess... profondo asbo
  • Score: 4

1:34am Sat 8 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
profondo asbo wrote:
just me 29 wrote:
U know nothing about the circumstances so go comment somewhere else yh!!
you do. so why not put the case to the echo readers?
What you mean like you?

You don't know me from Adam yet you've had me hung, drawn and quartered several times over on here.

I think not eh.
uh... got muthi?
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]just me 29[/bold] wrote: U know nothing about the circumstances so go comment somewhere else yh!![/p][/quote]you do. so why not put the case to the echo readers?[/p][/quote]What you mean like you? You don't know me from Adam yet you've had me hung, drawn and quartered several times over on here. I think not eh.[/p][/quote]uh... got muthi? profondo asbo
  • Score: 2

10:18am Sat 8 Mar 14

Jhopwood says...

I didn't ask for a row! I certainly DID NOT say I got pregnant to escape the situation!!! As I said in my previous comment I fell pregnant before I had to top up my rent due to bedroom tax!! I never had full benefit I was a working woman until maternity leave I am due to go back to work but being 20 weeks pregnant and having a 7 month baby it's proving difficult, I don't have a mum to babysit nor does my husband as they are both dead, my dad doesn't live in this country and my friends and family already work or have children therefore can not be my childminder, I don't earn enough to pay for a nanny or childminder or anything like that! So I'll be taking a year or more off work until my children go to nursery or I can find a job that will cover the cost of child care!!
I didn't ask for a row! I certainly DID NOT say I got pregnant to escape the situation!!! As I said in my previous comment I fell pregnant before I had to top up my rent due to bedroom tax!! I never had full benefit I was a working woman until maternity leave I am due to go back to work but being 20 weeks pregnant and having a 7 month baby it's proving difficult, I don't have a mum to babysit nor does my husband as they are both dead, my dad doesn't live in this country and my friends and family already work or have children therefore can not be my childminder, I don't earn enough to pay for a nanny or childminder or anything like that! So I'll be taking a year or more off work until my children go to nursery or I can find a job that will cover the cost of child care!! Jhopwood
  • Score: 5

1:25pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Ed Woods says...

Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments. Ed Woods
  • Score: 11

2:17pm Sat 8 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Jhopwood wrote:
I didn't ask for a row! I certainly DID NOT say I got pregnant to escape the situation!!! As I said in my previous comment I fell pregnant before I had to top up my rent due to bedroom tax!! I never had full benefit I was a working woman until maternity leave I am due to go back to work but being 20 weeks pregnant and having a 7 month baby it's proving difficult, I don't have a mum to babysit nor does my husband as they are both dead, my dad doesn't live in this country and my friends and family already work or have children therefore can not be my childminder, I don't earn enough to pay for a nanny or childminder or anything like that! So I'll be taking a year or more off work until my children go to nursery or I can find a job that will cover the cost of child care!!
Don't justify yourself to this rabble...they would torment a saint in their personal misery and feelings of inadequacy..

The tax is a abhorrent attack on people and will be looked back on in horror in the future..does who support it will and are part of that horror....with that in mind ignore them.
[quote][p][bold]Jhopwood[/bold] wrote: I didn't ask for a row! I certainly DID NOT say I got pregnant to escape the situation!!! As I said in my previous comment I fell pregnant before I had to top up my rent due to bedroom tax!! I never had full benefit I was a working woman until maternity leave I am due to go back to work but being 20 weeks pregnant and having a 7 month baby it's proving difficult, I don't have a mum to babysit nor does my husband as they are both dead, my dad doesn't live in this country and my friends and family already work or have children therefore can not be my childminder, I don't earn enough to pay for a nanny or childminder or anything like that! So I'll be taking a year or more off work until my children go to nursery or I can find a job that will cover the cost of child care!![/p][/quote]Don't justify yourself to this rabble...they would torment a saint in their personal misery and feelings of inadequacy.. The tax is a abhorrent attack on people and will be looked back on in horror in the future..does who support it will and are part of that horror....with that in mind ignore them. ThisYear
  • Score: 3

2:18pm Sat 8 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Ed Woods wrote:
Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
Time this rule was reviewed and revised.
[quote][p][bold]Ed Woods[/bold] wrote: Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.[/p][/quote]Time this rule was reviewed and revised. ThisYear
  • Score: -2

4:46pm Sat 8 Mar 14

jolllyboy says...

Get a grip people. This tax is just the start. Made by people who dont live in the same world as the rest of us. This tax will put people who try to keep their families tog back into the victorian age where you have several families living in one house and keep moving because their income (from a job !) did not keep up with greedy landlords. I include councils in the greedy landlords too because those going into social houses view the house as a potential cash cow because after three years hey presto they have enough income to buy it !
the idea of buying social housing house was because some had paid over many many years more than it would cost to have bought one. 3 years is rubbish and theytake advantage of tax payers who have been subsidising them.
Get a grip people. This tax is just the start. Made by people who dont live in the same world as the rest of us. This tax will put people who try to keep their families tog back into the victorian age where you have several families living in one house and keep moving because their income (from a job !) did not keep up with greedy landlords. I include councils in the greedy landlords too because those going into social houses view the house as a potential cash cow because after three years hey presto they have enough income to buy it ! the idea of buying social housing house was because some had paid over many many years more than it would cost to have bought one. 3 years is rubbish and theytake advantage of tax payers who have been subsidising them. jolllyboy
  • Score: -6

5:24pm Sat 8 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

jolllyboy wrote:
Get a grip people. This tax is just the start. Made by people who dont live in the same world as the rest of us. This tax will put people who try to keep their families tog back into the victorian age where you have several families living in one house and keep moving because their income (from a job !) did not keep up with greedy landlords. I include councils in the greedy landlords too because those going into social houses view the house as a potential cash cow because after three years hey presto they have enough income to buy it !
the idea of buying social housing house was because some had paid over many many years more than it would cost to have bought one. 3 years is rubbish and theytake advantage of tax payers who have been subsidising them.
I agree council housing should never be for sale...that would be a policy for fitting than the bedroom tax and would help deal with some of the issue the bedroom tax was supposed to deal with ie lack of council housing.

In all this people should remember that the council are employed by the people they are mere managers and can be challenged as such..
[quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Get a grip people. This tax is just the start. Made by people who dont live in the same world as the rest of us. This tax will put people who try to keep their families tog back into the victorian age where you have several families living in one house and keep moving because their income (from a job !) did not keep up with greedy landlords. I include councils in the greedy landlords too because those going into social houses view the house as a potential cash cow because after three years hey presto they have enough income to buy it ! the idea of buying social housing house was because some had paid over many many years more than it would cost to have bought one. 3 years is rubbish and theytake advantage of tax payers who have been subsidising them.[/p][/quote]I agree council housing should never be for sale...that would be a policy for fitting than the bedroom tax and would help deal with some of the issue the bedroom tax was supposed to deal with ie lack of council housing. In all this people should remember that the council are employed by the people they are mere managers and can be challenged as such.. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Ed Woods says...

ThisYear wrote:
Ed Woods wrote:
Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
Time this rule was reviewed and revised.
Yes it is ludicrous that a teenager is meant to share a room with a baby. Many of the rules have remained the same since the 1980s. The bedroom requirements for social housing that came in last year are the same that tenants in private rented have had for decades.

What Labour fail to mention is that they were already experimenting with their own version of the bedroom tax when they were last in Government. There were a handful of Local Authorities that took part in a Labour Government trail to restrict Housing Benefit for Social Housing tenants in overlarge properties. All the Conservatives did was to roll out their own version nationwide using the trials used by the last Labour Government.

If Labour had won the last General Election they would have rolled out their own version. We also need to remember it was the last Labour Government that unleashed ATOS on the disabled and the current Conservative/Lib Dem Government that continued and expanded their use.

Labour or Conservative you get the same thing - only difference is the language they use and the spin they put on what they do.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ed Woods[/bold] wrote: Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.[/p][/quote]Time this rule was reviewed and revised.[/p][/quote]Yes it is ludicrous that a teenager is meant to share a room with a baby. Many of the rules have remained the same since the 1980s. The bedroom requirements for social housing that came in last year are the same that tenants in private rented have had for decades. What Labour fail to mention is that they were already experimenting with their own version of the bedroom tax when they were last in Government. There were a handful of Local Authorities that took part in a Labour Government trail to restrict Housing Benefit for Social Housing tenants in overlarge properties. All the Conservatives did was to roll out their own version nationwide using the trials used by the last Labour Government. If Labour had won the last General Election they would have rolled out their own version. We also need to remember it was the last Labour Government that unleashed ATOS on the disabled and the current Conservative/Lib Dem Government that continued and expanded their use. Labour or Conservative you get the same thing - only difference is the language they use and the spin they put on what they do. Ed Woods
  • Score: 3

6:31pm Sat 8 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Ed Woods wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Ed Woods wrote:
Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
Time this rule was reviewed and revised.
Yes it is ludicrous that a teenager is meant to share a room with a baby. Many of the rules have remained the same since the 1980s. The bedroom requirements for social housing that came in last year are the same that tenants in private rented have had for decades.

What Labour fail to mention is that they were already experimenting with their own version of the bedroom tax when they were last in Government. There were a handful of Local Authorities that took part in a Labour Government trail to restrict Housing Benefit for Social Housing tenants in overlarge properties. All the Conservatives did was to roll out their own version nationwide using the trials used by the last Labour Government.

If Labour had won the last General Election they would have rolled out their own version. We also need to remember it was the last Labour Government that unleashed ATOS on the disabled and the current Conservative/Lib Dem Government that continued and expanded their use.

Labour or Conservative you get the same thing - only difference is the language they use and the spin they put on what they do.
Who cares which party it is that staves you, makes you homeless, causes you to fear for your own and families safety or makes life a matter of survival rather than living...they who do this are put in the position to do this by US...and I don't mean the United states...
[quote][p][bold]Ed Woods[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ed Woods[/bold] wrote: Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.[/p][/quote]Time this rule was reviewed and revised.[/p][/quote]Yes it is ludicrous that a teenager is meant to share a room with a baby. Many of the rules have remained the same since the 1980s. The bedroom requirements for social housing that came in last year are the same that tenants in private rented have had for decades. What Labour fail to mention is that they were already experimenting with their own version of the bedroom tax when they were last in Government. There were a handful of Local Authorities that took part in a Labour Government trail to restrict Housing Benefit for Social Housing tenants in overlarge properties. All the Conservatives did was to roll out their own version nationwide using the trials used by the last Labour Government. If Labour had won the last General Election they would have rolled out their own version. We also need to remember it was the last Labour Government that unleashed ATOS on the disabled and the current Conservative/Lib Dem Government that continued and expanded their use. Labour or Conservative you get the same thing - only difference is the language they use and the spin they put on what they do.[/p][/quote]Who cares which party it is that staves you, makes you homeless, causes you to fear for your own and families safety or makes life a matter of survival rather than living...they who do this are put in the position to do this by US...and I don't mean the United states... ThisYear
  • Score: 1

11:10pm Sat 8 Mar 14

chexy says...

Stop knocking out babies when you're living off benefits in a council house. Irresponsible.
Stop knocking out babies when you're living off benefits in a council house. Irresponsible. chexy
  • Score: 3

11:47pm Sat 8 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

chexy wrote:
Stop knocking out babies when you're living off benefits in a council house. Irresponsible.
Only those working and owning their own properties can reproduce?

Bit extreme isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]chexy[/bold] wrote: Stop knocking out babies when you're living off benefits in a council house. Irresponsible.[/p][/quote]Only those working and owning their own properties can reproduce? Bit extreme isn't it? ThisYear
  • Score: 2

7:46am Sun 9 Mar 14

runwellian says...

Whatever the ins and outs of this case, it is wrong fro sigle folk to live in large houses when others cannot get homes.

If the council want these homes fro other needy folk, they have a duty to find replacement homes and meet the cots of relocating.

Moving home is stressful, furniture, carpets, curtains etc.do not fit neatly into another home and often meed replacing.

Folk are expected to move to new areas, away from family and friends.

It is not just about having a spare room, it is all the upheaval that comes with moving home, planned or otherwise and the cost should be met by the council!
Whatever the ins and outs of this case, it is wrong fro sigle folk to live in large houses when others cannot get homes. If the council want these homes fro other needy folk, they have a duty to find replacement homes and meet the cots of relocating. Moving home is stressful, furniture, carpets, curtains etc.do not fit neatly into another home and often meed replacing. Folk are expected to move to new areas, away from family and friends. It is not just about having a spare room, it is all the upheaval that comes with moving home, planned or otherwise and the cost should be met by the council! runwellian
  • Score: -1

8:26am Sun 9 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

got contraceptives? or would the taxpayer have to fund those too?
got contraceptives? or would the taxpayer have to fund those too? profondo asbo
  • Score: 4

2:45pm Wed 12 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

ThisYear wrote:
Ed Woods wrote: Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
Time this rule was reviewed and revised.
Lots of people grow up sharing a room with a sibling, including those in privately owned houses.
Let's not forget this country is on it's knees financially, and comon sense has to prevail. We must preserve our social welfare system for those in need (jhopwood included), but we need to tighten the belt a little. A lot of people who don't use the benefits system have had to make sacrifices since the credit crisis began, and those on benefits will have to do the same.
Let's also not forget we are one of few countries in the world who offer state accommodation and benefits, so can we really complain about kids sharing a room?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ed Woods[/bold] wrote: Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.[/p][/quote]Time this rule was reviewed and revised.[/p][/quote]Lots of people grow up sharing a room with a sibling, including those in privately owned houses. Let's not forget this country is on it's knees financially, and comon sense has to prevail. We must preserve our social welfare system for those in need (jhopwood included), but we need to tighten the belt a little. A lot of people who don't use the benefits system have had to make sacrifices since the credit crisis began, and those on benefits will have to do the same. Let's also not forget we are one of few countries in the world who offer state accommodation and benefits, so can we really complain about kids sharing a room? cg1blue
  • Score: 3

10:01pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Ed Woods wrote: Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
Time this rule was reviewed and revised.
Lots of people grow up sharing a room with a sibling, including those in privately owned houses.
Let's not forget this country is on it's knees financially, and comon sense has to prevail. We must preserve our social welfare system for those in need (jhopwood included), but we need to tighten the belt a little. A lot of people who don't use the benefits system have had to make sacrifices since the credit crisis began, and those on benefits will have to do the same.
Let's also not forget we are one of few countries in the world who offer state accommodation and benefits, so can we really complain about kids sharing a room?
Lots of people grew up sharing rooms beds with two or more siblings, some grew up sharing bedrooms with their parents...should that be accepted as the way things are going today..backwards?

The country on its knees? Any independent proof of that?

How do people on benefits tighten their belts..they are given the minimum to live on...how do you reduce a minimum?

Measuring ourselves against over countries is an invalid point.

For instance, A lot of the European countries provide benefits claimants with much more money to live on than this country..
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ed Woods[/bold] wrote: Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.[/p][/quote]Time this rule was reviewed and revised.[/p][/quote]Lots of people grow up sharing a room with a sibling, including those in privately owned houses. Let's not forget this country is on it's knees financially, and comon sense has to prevail. We must preserve our social welfare system for those in need (jhopwood included), but we need to tighten the belt a little. A lot of people who don't use the benefits system have had to make sacrifices since the credit crisis began, and those on benefits will have to do the same. Let's also not forget we are one of few countries in the world who offer state accommodation and benefits, so can we really complain about kids sharing a room?[/p][/quote]Lots of people grew up sharing rooms beds with two or more siblings, some grew up sharing bedrooms with their parents...should that be accepted as the way things are going today..backwards? The country on its knees? Any independent proof of that? How do people on benefits tighten their belts..they are given the minimum to live on...how do you reduce a minimum? Measuring ourselves against over countries is an invalid point. For instance, A lot of the European countries provide benefits claimants with much more money to live on than this country.. ThisYear
  • Score: -2

10:31pm Wed 12 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Ed Woods wrote: Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
Time this rule was reviewed and revised.
Lots of people grow up sharing a room with a sibling, including those in privately owned houses.
Let's not forget this country is on it's knees financially, and comon sense has to prevail. We must preserve our social welfare system for those in need (jhopwood included), but we need to tighten the belt a little. A lot of people who don't use the benefits system have had to make sacrifices since the credit crisis began, and those on benefits will have to do the same.
Let's also not forget we are one of few countries in the world who offer state accommodation and benefits, so can we really complain about kids sharing a room?
finally some sense.
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ed Woods[/bold] wrote: Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.[/p][/quote]Time this rule was reviewed and revised.[/p][/quote]Lots of people grow up sharing a room with a sibling, including those in privately owned houses. Let's not forget this country is on it's knees financially, and comon sense has to prevail. We must preserve our social welfare system for those in need (jhopwood included), but we need to tighten the belt a little. A lot of people who don't use the benefits system have had to make sacrifices since the credit crisis began, and those on benefits will have to do the same. Let's also not forget we are one of few countries in the world who offer state accommodation and benefits, so can we really complain about kids sharing a room?[/p][/quote]finally some sense. profondo asbo
  • Score: 0

8:14am Thu 13 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
Ed Woods wrote: Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
Time this rule was reviewed and revised.
Lots of people grow up sharing a room with a sibling, including those in privately owned houses. Let's not forget this country is on it's knees financially, and comon sense has to prevail. We must preserve our social welfare system for those in need (jhopwood included), but we need to tighten the belt a little. A lot of people who don't use the benefits system have had to make sacrifices since the credit crisis began, and those on benefits will have to do the same. Let's also not forget we are one of few countries in the world who offer state accommodation and benefits, so can we really complain about kids sharing a room?
Lots of people grew up sharing rooms beds with two or more siblings, some grew up sharing bedrooms with their parents...should that be accepted as the way things are going today..backwards? The country on its knees? Any independent proof of that? How do people on benefits tighten their belts..they are given the minimum to live on...how do you reduce a minimum? Measuring ourselves against over countries is an invalid point. For instance, A lot of the European countries provide benefits claimants with much more money to live on than this country..
*The country on its knees? Any independent proof of that? *
The UK were net borrowers of £100 billion in 2013, with a budget deficit of over £70 billion, and public sector net debt of £1.2 TRILLION. Just walk down the highstreet or through Lakeside and see how many shops are still closing down....

*How do people on benefits tighten their belts..they are given the minimum to live on...how do you reduce a minimum?*
Ask them to share a bedroom...

*For instance, A lot of the European countries provide benefits claimants with much more money to live on than this country..*
Can you tell me which countries, and how much more they provide benefits claimants with please? I don't know for sure, but this will probably be a reflection of a strong economy, like Swizerland for example.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ed Woods[/bold] wrote: Housing Benefit legislation states 2 children of the same sex under 16 are only allocated 1 bedroom. These have been the rules for the past 25 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.[/p][/quote]Time this rule was reviewed and revised.[/p][/quote]Lots of people grow up sharing a room with a sibling, including those in privately owned houses. Let's not forget this country is on it's knees financially, and comon sense has to prevail. We must preserve our social welfare system for those in need (jhopwood included), but we need to tighten the belt a little. A lot of people who don't use the benefits system have had to make sacrifices since the credit crisis began, and those on benefits will have to do the same. Let's also not forget we are one of few countries in the world who offer state accommodation and benefits, so can we really complain about kids sharing a room?[/p][/quote]Lots of people grew up sharing rooms beds with two or more siblings, some grew up sharing bedrooms with their parents...should that be accepted as the way things are going today..backwards? The country on its knees? Any independent proof of that? How do people on benefits tighten their belts..they are given the minimum to live on...how do you reduce a minimum? Measuring ourselves against over countries is an invalid point. For instance, A lot of the European countries provide benefits claimants with much more money to live on than this country..[/p][/quote]*The country on its knees? Any independent proof of that? * The UK were net borrowers of £100 billion in 2013, with a budget deficit of over £70 billion, and public sector net debt of £1.2 TRILLION. Just walk down the highstreet or through Lakeside and see how many shops are still closing down.... *How do people on benefits tighten their belts..they are given the minimum to live on...how do you reduce a minimum?* Ask them to share a bedroom... *For instance, A lot of the European countries provide benefits claimants with much more money to live on than this country..* Can you tell me which countries, and how much more they provide benefits claimants with please? I don't know for sure, but this will probably be a reflection of a strong economy, like Swizerland for example. cg1blue
  • Score: 2

11:56am Thu 13 Mar 14

canveydude24 says...

Because the lazy tories cannot be bothered in hunting down the real benefit cheats they take the easy option and target the easy to find council tenants with the bedroom tax
Because the lazy tories cannot be bothered in hunting down the real benefit cheats they take the easy option and target the easy to find council tenants with the bedroom tax canveydude24
  • Score: -1

12:13pm Thu 13 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

canveydude24 wrote:
Because the lazy tories cannot be bothered in hunting down the real benefit cheats they take the easy option and target the easy to find council tenants with the bedroom tax
Do you think it's only the Tories who can't track down benefit cheats? I don't recall Labour being any more successful. I don't think the political party comes into it canveydude24.
The cheats are quite good at what they do, and they're very hard to track down. Some are just exploiting loopholes, and so are not technically breaking any rules.
If there was a simple 'please all' solution I'm sure somebody would have announced it publicly by now...
[quote][p][bold]canveydude24[/bold] wrote: Because the lazy tories cannot be bothered in hunting down the real benefit cheats they take the easy option and target the easy to find council tenants with the bedroom tax[/p][/quote]Do you think it's only the Tories who can't track down benefit cheats? I don't recall Labour being any more successful. I don't think the political party comes into it canveydude24. The cheats are quite good at what they do, and they're very hard to track down. Some are just exploiting loopholes, and so are not technically breaking any rules. If there was a simple 'please all' solution I'm sure somebody would have announced it publicly by now... cg1blue
  • Score: 0

11:30am Wed 19 Mar 14

PJH123 says...

ThisYear wrote:
uncle_jarvis wrote:
People aren't 'charged' bedroom tax - it's a deduction from benefits.

An important distinction.
Not as important as it being the same result..less money!
But there is a difference - in whose money it is. In the charging situation it would be her money. In the deduction situation it's mine and other people who pay a net amount of tax to the country.

And the only people who can't seem to tell the difference are those who are net benificiaries from those who are net contributors.

I would love to have a three bedroom home, but I can't because too much of my money is being stolen so that it can be given to the likes of Ms. Hopwood who doesn't want to earn enough so that she can pay for her own house.

And if she can't afford the situation as it is at the moment, why is she having more children? Are we taxpayers being expected to pay for that kid as well?
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uncle_jarvis[/bold] wrote: People aren't 'charged' bedroom tax - it's a deduction from benefits. An important distinction.[/p][/quote]Not as important as it being the same result..less money![/p][/quote]But there [bold]is[/bold] a difference - in whose money it is. In the charging situation it would be her money. In the deduction situation it's mine and other people who pay a net amount of tax to the country. And the only people who can't seem to tell the difference are those who are net benificiaries from those who are net contributors. I would love to have a three bedroom home, but I can't because too much of [bold]my[/bold] money is being stolen so that it can be given to the likes of Ms. Hopwood who doesn't want to earn enough so that she can pay for her own house. And if she can't afford the situation as it is at the moment, why is she having more children? Are we taxpayers being expected to pay for that kid as well? PJH123
  • Score: 4

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