Now bedroom tax ‘martyr’ can stay!

Dave Murray with residents of the 'Residents Against the Bedroom Tax' campaign group

Dave Murray with residents of the 'Residents Against the Bedroom Tax' campaign group

First published in Echo News by

A FAMILY who are hundreds of pounds in arrearswith rent on their Basildon Council house because to the bedroom tax can keep their home.

Teresa Whitby, 59, appeared at Basildon County Court onFriday and agreed to payoff £948 arrears in weekly instalments, but said it would leave her family “penniless”.

She must pay £5 a week, which means the arrears will take three and a half years to clear.

Dozens of anti-bedroom tax campaigners demonstrated outside the court during Friday’s hearing in support of Mrs Whitby.

In the borough’s first bedroom tax-related case, Basildon Council had applied to evict her because of her rent arrears.

However, the court ruled Mrs Whitby should not be ordered out, but should instead be given a suspended possession order, allowing her to stay, provided she pays a certain weekly amount.

Mrs Whitby was told she must nowhave to pay her weekly £101 rent, plus £5 a week in arrears, until the debt is paid off.

It is believed she will also be allowed to pay off £226 court costs awarded against her in weekly instalments beginning from April 22.

Between them, Mrs Whitby and her husband, Bill, 62, get just £112 a week jobseeker’s allowance.

After the hearing, she said she would struggle to provide for her familywith so little spare money.

Mrs Whitby, who also shares her three-bedroom house in Quendon Road, Basildon, with her son, said: “We just haven’t been treated fairly at all.

“We will really struggle to get by now, especially since our rent has gone up from £97. We have to hit every deadline, or we will be brought back to court straight away and could be issued with 28 days notice to leave our home.”

The Government’s bedroom tax policy cuts housing benefits to social housing tenants ruled to have an empty room in their homes.

The Government has claimed the aim is to encourage tenants to move to smaller properties, freeing up bigger homes for families.

However, most of the 15,000 Basildon tenants penalised by the bedroom tax have no hope of moving and avoiding benefit cuts because of a lack of smaller properties into which to move.

Mrs Whitby said her family has struggled to cope since they had lost £15 of their weekly housing benefit payment.

She said about half the rent arrears were down to the loss of this cash.

She added: “I don’t want to have anything to do with this council. I would love nothing more than to sever all ties with it, but I am not in a position to do that.”

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:18pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Discouraged says...

A previous article about this family's arrears said it was THOUSANDS and they received abuse in the comments section. We have got used to the low standards of literacy, but why try and match that with poor numeracy?
A previous article about this family's arrears said it was THOUSANDS and they received abuse in the comments section. We have got used to the low standards of literacy, but why try and match that with poor numeracy? Discouraged
  • Score: 17

4:23pm Tue 15 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

got taxed bedroom tax benefit?
got taxed bedroom tax benefit? profondo asbo
  • Score: 2

5:47pm Tue 15 Apr 14

smalrh says...

Go and get a smaller property or better still do the right thing and go and find a job. Fed up supporting everyone and struggling to live ourselves.
Go and get a smaller property or better still do the right thing and go and find a job. Fed up supporting everyone and struggling to live ourselves. smalrh
  • Score: 18

6:13pm Tue 15 Apr 14

southend-man says...

IT'S NOT A TAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT'S NOT A TAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! southend-man
  • Score: 13

6:28pm Tue 15 Apr 14

1chop100 says...

why dont the goverment
get familys out of council housing.
that can aford to buy there own place.
pick on them
its all wrong.
I know one family
they live in council property
and have 3 new cars on the drive.
pick on those familys!!!!!!!......
.......
why dont the goverment get familys out of council housing. that can aford to buy there own place. pick on them its all wrong. I know one family they live in council property and have 3 new cars on the drive. pick on those familys!!!!!!!...... ....... 1chop100
  • Score: 35

6:48pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Living the La Vida Legra says...

1chop100 wrote:
why dont the goverment
get familys out of council housing.
that can aford to buy there own place.
pick on them
its all wrong.
I know one family
they live in council property
and have 3 new cars on the drive.
pick on those familys!!!!!!!......

.......
Bang on!
Funny how many motor sports support vans are in council estates?
[quote][p][bold]1chop100[/bold] wrote: why dont the goverment get familys out of council housing. that can aford to buy there own place. pick on them its all wrong. I know one family they live in council property and have 3 new cars on the drive. pick on those familys!!!!!!!...... .......[/p][/quote]Bang on! Funny how many motor sports support vans are in council estates? Living the La Vida Legra
  • Score: 13

7:23pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Steve H says...

Get a smaller house, therefore less rent, therefore more money.

Beggars can't be choosers.

QED
Get a smaller house, therefore less rent, therefore more money. Beggars can't be choosers. QED Steve H
  • Score: -2

8:10pm Tue 15 Apr 14

southend-man says...

What do a working family do if they cannot afford to live where they live? They move.

Why these lazy people who are lucky enough to have hard working tax payers paying for them to have somewhere to live at all think they are being hard done by because they have chosen a house too big for them is beyond me.

HERE'S AN IDEA - GET A JOB.
What do a working family do if they cannot afford to live where they live? They move. Why these lazy people who are lucky enough to have hard working tax payers paying for them to have somewhere to live at all think they are being hard done by because they have chosen a house too big for them is beyond me. HERE'S AN IDEA - GET A JOB. southend-man
  • Score: 14

8:10pm Tue 15 Apr 14

imnotanimby says...

The fact that they have 'lost' £15 a week in housing benefit means that they do not "get just £112 a week in job seekers allowance" but are claiming other benefits including housing benefits and council tax benefits which have a monetary value. By the time I pay my mortgage and council tax I am left with a lot less than £112 a week but I always pay my bills and don't live beyond my means.
The fact that they have 'lost' £15 a week in housing benefit means that they do not "get just £112 a week in job seekers allowance" but are claiming other benefits including housing benefits and council tax benefits which have a monetary value. By the time I pay my mortgage and council tax I am left with a lot less than £112 a week but I always pay my bills and don't live beyond my means. imnotanimby
  • Score: 25

9:28pm Tue 15 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

martyr is a complete misnomer. did anyone give up their life or sacrifice anything in fact?
martyr is a complete misnomer. did anyone give up their life or sacrifice anything in fact? profondo asbo
  • Score: 20

10:37pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Nebs says...

£112 a week isn't much for 3 of them.
£112 a week isn't much for 3 of them. Nebs
  • Score: 0

10:40pm Tue 15 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

imnotanimby wrote:
The fact that they have 'lost' £15 a week in housing benefit means that they do not "get just £112 a week in job seekers allowance" but are claiming other benefits including housing benefits and council tax benefits which have a monetary value. By the time I pay my mortgage and council tax I am left with a lot less than £112 a week but I always pay my bills and don't live beyond my means.
So? This Isnt about you is it?
[quote][p][bold]imnotanimby[/bold] wrote: The fact that they have 'lost' £15 a week in housing benefit means that they do not "get just £112 a week in job seekers allowance" but are claiming other benefits including housing benefits and council tax benefits which have a monetary value. By the time I pay my mortgage and council tax I am left with a lot less than £112 a week but I always pay my bills and don't live beyond my means.[/p][/quote]So? This Isnt about you is it? ThisYear
  • Score: -24

10:42pm Tue 15 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
got taxed bedroom tax benefit?
There is so much you will never understand...being too closed minded to do so..."but the earth is flat I tells ya"
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: got taxed bedroom tax benefit?[/p][/quote]There is so much you will never understand...being too closed minded to do so..."but the earth is flat I tells ya" ThisYear
  • Score: -7

12:25am Wed 16 Apr 14

imnotanimby says...

Nebs wrote:
£112 a week isn't much for 3 of them.
It's for two of them. Their son is an adult and independent but unfortunately he does not appear to have any sense of duty towards his parents!
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: £112 a week isn't much for 3 of them.[/p][/quote]It's for two of them. Their son is an adult and independent but unfortunately he does not appear to have any sense of duty towards his parents! imnotanimby
  • Score: 18

2:53am Wed 16 Apr 14

poortaxpayer says...

Nebs wrote:
£112 a week isn't much for 3 of them.
As he is 62 the family should be automatically exempt from the Bedroom Tax.

As he is 62 then this couple would be entitled to £226.50 per week in Pension Credits.

There are things n this story that don't add up.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: £112 a week isn't much for 3 of them.[/p][/quote]As he is 62 the family should be automatically exempt from the Bedroom Tax. As he is 62 then this couple would be entitled to £226.50 per week in Pension Credits. There are things n this story that don't add up. poortaxpayer
  • Score: 17

7:15am Wed 16 Apr 14

whateverhappened says...

i wonder what they DO for there job seekers allowance
i wonder what they DO for there job seekers allowance whateverhappened
  • Score: 10

8:18am Wed 16 Apr 14

pembury53 says...

whateverhappened wrote:
i wonder what they DO for there job seekers allowance
....... seek jobs, that be the rules !
[quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: i wonder what they DO for there job seekers allowance[/p][/quote]....... seek jobs, that be the rules ! pembury53
  • Score: -9

9:24am Wed 16 Apr 14

cg1blue says...

I would like to know if they have made any efforts to find a smaller property, and thus reverse the cut in their benefits. The story says there are no smaller properties available, but have this family actually tried?
I suspect a lot of people in this situation don't even try to move. Mrs Whitby doesn't say if they have tried. If they have tried then I would have some sympathy.
And before some (e.g. ThisYear) say "why should they try to move?", it is the same for private house owners. You have to downsize when times are hard.
I would like to know if they have made any efforts to find a smaller property, and thus reverse the cut in their benefits. The story says there are no smaller properties available, but have this family actually tried? I suspect a lot of people in this situation don't even try to move. Mrs Whitby doesn't say if they have tried. If they have tried then I would have some sympathy. And before some (e.g. ThisYear) say "why should they try to move?", it is the same for private house owners. You have to downsize when times are hard. cg1blue
  • Score: 8

9:27am Wed 16 Apr 14

cg1blue says...

Secondly, I understand it must be difficult for the older occupants to find jobs (although if you went to places like Singapore you'd see over 60s taking jobs in McDonalds etc.), but I seem to remember the son living in this property is in his 20s. Has there been any explanation as to why he is not working and helping his parents out of this situation?
Please don't tell me there is no work out there for a man in his 20s.

As others have stated, there is something not quite right about this story...
Secondly, I understand it must be difficult for the older occupants to find jobs (although if you went to places like Singapore you'd see over 60s taking jobs in McDonalds etc.), but I seem to remember the son living in this property is in his 20s. Has there been any explanation as to why he is not working and helping his parents out of this situation? Please don't tell me there is no work out there for a man in his 20s. As others have stated, there is something not quite right about this story... cg1blue
  • Score: 11

9:33am Wed 16 Apr 14

southend-man says...

pembury53 wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
i wonder what they DO for there job seekers allowance
....... seek jobs, that be the rules !
Hmmm...

I remember once watching an episode of Panorama about people on benefits and the woman, angry at the fact she had to go to the job centre said 'I've got better things to do than go to the job centre.' Clearly she, and a lot of people like her go to the Job Centre with absolutely no intention of getting a job. Their impudence angers me.
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: i wonder what they DO for there job seekers allowance[/p][/quote]....... seek jobs, that be the rules ![/p][/quote]Hmmm... I remember once watching an episode of Panorama about people on benefits and the woman, angry at the fact she had to go to the job centre said 'I've got better things to do than go to the job centre.' Clearly she, and a lot of people like her go to the Job Centre with absolutely no intention of getting a job. Their impudence angers me. southend-man
  • Score: 12

1:29pm Wed 16 Apr 14

I-say-you-say says...

cg1blue wrote:
Secondly, I understand it must be difficult for the older occupants to find jobs (although if you went to places like Singapore you'd see over 60s taking jobs in McDonalds etc.), but I seem to remember the son living in this property is in his 20s. Has there been any explanation as to why he is not working and helping his parents out of this situation? Please don't tell me there is no work out there for a man in his 20s. As others have stated, there is something not quite right about this story...
I think I read on the previous story that the son does work and the reduction in benefits is because he is a "non dependant" (as well as a small issue of the reduction due to them having an additional bedroom). Perhaps he could move out and get his own place while his parents move to a nice little 1 bed sheltered accomodation flat?

Therefore, with this in mind, plus the other facts mentioned above about their age and benefits they would receive, this does not add up as they wouldn't have to pay their full rent AND the arrears they accumulated and I would suggest that they've just been stubborn and not paid and now it's backfired they've gone running to the papers. Shame it hasn't stoked up the sympathy they expected!
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: Secondly, I understand it must be difficult for the older occupants to find jobs (although if you went to places like Singapore you'd see over 60s taking jobs in McDonalds etc.), but I seem to remember the son living in this property is in his 20s. Has there been any explanation as to why he is not working and helping his parents out of this situation? Please don't tell me there is no work out there for a man in his 20s. As others have stated, there is something not quite right about this story...[/p][/quote]I think I read on the previous story that the son does work and the reduction in benefits is because he is a "non dependant" (as well as a small issue of the reduction due to them having an additional bedroom). Perhaps he could move out and get his own place while his parents move to a nice little 1 bed sheltered accomodation flat? Therefore, with this in mind, plus the other facts mentioned above about their age and benefits they would receive, this does not add up as they wouldn't have to pay their full rent AND the arrears they accumulated and I would suggest that they've just been stubborn and not paid and now it's backfired they've gone running to the papers. Shame it hasn't stoked up the sympathy they expected! I-say-you-say
  • Score: 8

2:40pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Feminism is Dead says...

Why is there a donation box on the table? What (or who) are they collecting for? Money for a celebratory drink afterwards?

Disgusting.
Why is there a donation box on the table? What (or who) are they collecting for? Money for a celebratory drink afterwards? Disgusting. Feminism is Dead
  • Score: 10

3:45pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Bigmama1 says...

Nebs wrote:
£112 a week isn't much for 3 of them.
That's quite enough if they have housing benefit and other benefits also. This means the rest is for their food, fags and drinks. If they want more work for it, no matter what job it is. No, they won't though as they are just bone idle.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: £112 a week isn't much for 3 of them.[/p][/quote]That's quite enough if they have housing benefit and other benefits also. This means the rest is for their food, fags and drinks. If they want more work for it, no matter what job it is. No, they won't though as they are just bone idle. Bigmama1
  • Score: 7

3:50pm Wed 16 Apr 14

cg1blue says...

Bigmama1 wrote:
Nebs wrote: £112 a week isn't much for 3 of them.
That's quite enough if they have housing benefit and other benefits also. This means the rest is for their food, fags and drinks. If they want more work for it, no matter what job it is. No, they won't though as they are just bone idle.
As somebody stated earlier, £112 per week is for two people, not 3 people. The 3rd person in the property is a working adult (so it seems)
[quote][p][bold]Bigmama1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: £112 a week isn't much for 3 of them.[/p][/quote]That's quite enough if they have housing benefit and other benefits also. This means the rest is for their food, fags and drinks. If they want more work for it, no matter what job it is. No, they won't though as they are just bone idle.[/p][/quote]As somebody stated earlier, £112 per week is for two people, not 3 people. The 3rd person in the property is a working adult (so it seems) cg1blue
  • Score: 9

4:06pm Wed 16 Apr 14

poortaxpayer says...

cg1blue wrote:
Bigmama1 wrote:
Nebs wrote: £112 a week isn't much for 3 of them.
That's quite enough if they have housing benefit and other benefits also. This means the rest is for their food, fags and drinks. If they want more work for it, no matter what job it is. No, they won't though as they are just bone idle.
As somebody stated earlier, £112 per week is for two people, not 3 people. The 3rd person in the property is a working adult (so it seems)
As I have already pointed out as he is 62 the family should be automatically exempt from the Bedroom Tax and as he is 62 then this couple would be entitled to £226.50 per week in Pension Credits not £112 Job Seekers Allowance - they should give the Pension Service a ring on 0800 991234 to see if they can up their income.
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bigmama1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: £112 a week isn't much for 3 of them.[/p][/quote]That's quite enough if they have housing benefit and other benefits also. This means the rest is for their food, fags and drinks. If they want more work for it, no matter what job it is. No, they won't though as they are just bone idle.[/p][/quote]As somebody stated earlier, £112 per week is for two people, not 3 people. The 3rd person in the property is a working adult (so it seems)[/p][/quote]As I have already pointed out as he is 62 the family should be automatically exempt from the Bedroom Tax and as he is 62 then this couple would be entitled to £226.50 per week in Pension Credits not £112 Job Seekers Allowance - they should give the Pension Service a ring on 0800 991234 to see if they can up their income. poortaxpayer
  • Score: 8

4:48pm Wed 16 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

the demonstration happened during the day on friday. everyone in that picture is of working age. wonder how they managed to get the time off? dave murray - is there a bigger waste of space on this planet?
the demonstration happened during the day on friday. everyone in that picture is of working age. wonder how they managed to get the time off? dave murray - is there a bigger waste of space on this planet? profondo asbo
  • Score: 10

10:46pm Wed 16 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

southend-man wrote:
IT'S NOT A TAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES IT IS!
[quote][p][bold]southend-man[/bold] wrote: IT'S NOT A TAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]YES IT IS! ThisYear
  • Score: -15

10:56pm Wed 16 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

cg1blue wrote:
I would like to know if they have made any efforts to find a smaller property, and thus reverse the cut in their benefits. The story says there are no smaller properties available, but have this family actually tried?
I suspect a lot of people in this situation don't even try to move. Mrs Whitby doesn't say if they have tried. If they have tried then I would have some sympathy.
And before some (e.g. ThisYear) say "why should they try to move?", it is the same for private house owners. You have to downsize when times are hard.
Do you think the paper would say there were no smaller properties available if there were?

Im sure those who could downsize did...but if there are no places to downsize to then the rest are penalised for that fact..

Even Joseph Heller wouldn't of written about it.
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: I would like to know if they have made any efforts to find a smaller property, and thus reverse the cut in their benefits. The story says there are no smaller properties available, but have this family actually tried? I suspect a lot of people in this situation don't even try to move. Mrs Whitby doesn't say if they have tried. If they have tried then I would have some sympathy. And before some (e.g. ThisYear) say "why should they try to move?", it is the same for private house owners. You have to downsize when times are hard.[/p][/quote]Do you think the paper would say there were no smaller properties available if there were? Im sure those who could downsize did...but if there are no places to downsize to then the rest are penalised for that fact.. Even Joseph Heller wouldn't of written about it. ThisYear
  • Score: -3

8:15am Thu 17 Apr 14

southend-man says...

ThisYear wrote:
southend-man wrote:
IT'S NOT A TAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES IT IS!
No it isn't. A tax is when you earn money and the government takes some of it away, this is the government giving people a bit less money because they are abusing the money which they have been given by living in a house too big for them.

Notice the verbs, for a tax it is take and for the bedroom subsidy it is give. They are antonyms, ergo IT IS NOT A TAX.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southend-man[/bold] wrote: IT'S NOT A TAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]YES IT IS![/p][/quote]No it isn't. A tax is when you earn money and the government takes some of it away, this is the government giving people a bit less money because they are abusing the money which they have been given by living in a house too big for them. Notice the verbs, for a tax it is take and for the bedroom subsidy it is give. They are antonyms, ergo IT IS NOT A TAX. southend-man
  • Score: 12

10:06am Thu 17 Apr 14

I-say-you-say says...

ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote: I would like to know if they have made any efforts to find a smaller property, and thus reverse the cut in their benefits. The story says there are no smaller properties available, but have this family actually tried? I suspect a lot of people in this situation don't even try to move. Mrs Whitby doesn't say if they have tried. If they have tried then I would have some sympathy. And before some (e.g. ThisYear) say "why should they try to move?", it is the same for private house owners. You have to downsize when times are hard.
Do you think the paper would say there were no smaller properties available if there were? Im sure those who could downsize did...but if there are no places to downsize to then the rest are penalised for that fact.. Even Joseph Heller wouldn't of written about it.
Yes I think the paper would say that.

It's my understanding that the Council has a lot of sheltered accomodation properties going spare (usually 1 bedroom and ground floor). If the son went and got his own place (also possible through Basildon Council although more likely to be 3rd floor studio/1 bed), then at their age they can transfer there and downsize as well as have spare money to enjoy themselves.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: I would like to know if they have made any efforts to find a smaller property, and thus reverse the cut in their benefits. The story says there are no smaller properties available, but have this family actually tried? I suspect a lot of people in this situation don't even try to move. Mrs Whitby doesn't say if they have tried. If they have tried then I would have some sympathy. And before some (e.g. ThisYear) say "why should they try to move?", it is the same for private house owners. You have to downsize when times are hard.[/p][/quote]Do you think the paper would say there were no smaller properties available if there were? Im sure those who could downsize did...but if there are no places to downsize to then the rest are penalised for that fact.. Even Joseph Heller wouldn't of written about it.[/p][/quote]Yes I think the paper would say that. It's my understanding that the Council has a lot of sheltered accomodation properties going spare (usually 1 bedroom and ground floor). If the son went and got his own place (also possible through Basildon Council although more likely to be 3rd floor studio/1 bed), then at their age they can transfer there and downsize as well as have spare money to enjoy themselves. I-say-you-say
  • Score: 3

11:21am Thu 17 Apr 14

cg1blue says...

ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote: I would like to know if they have made any efforts to find a smaller property, and thus reverse the cut in their benefits. The story says there are no smaller properties available, but have this family actually tried? I suspect a lot of people in this situation don't even try to move. Mrs Whitby doesn't say if they have tried. If they have tried then I would have some sympathy. And before some (e.g. ThisYear) say "why should they try to move?", it is the same for private house owners. You have to downsize when times are hard.
Do you think the paper would say there were no smaller properties available if there were? Im sure those who could downsize did...but if there are no places to downsize to then the rest are penalised for that fact.. Even Joseph Heller wouldn't of written about it.
We all know the Echo likes to sensationalise, so yes, I do think they would say there were no smaller places available if there were
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: I would like to know if they have made any efforts to find a smaller property, and thus reverse the cut in their benefits. The story says there are no smaller properties available, but have this family actually tried? I suspect a lot of people in this situation don't even try to move. Mrs Whitby doesn't say if they have tried. If they have tried then I would have some sympathy. And before some (e.g. ThisYear) say "why should they try to move?", it is the same for private house owners. You have to downsize when times are hard.[/p][/quote]Do you think the paper would say there were no smaller properties available if there were? Im sure those who could downsize did...but if there are no places to downsize to then the rest are penalised for that fact.. Even Joseph Heller wouldn't of written about it.[/p][/quote]We all know the Echo likes to sensationalise, so yes, I do think they would say there were no smaller places available if there were cg1blue
  • Score: 2

11:23am Thu 17 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

got bedroom snacks?
got bedroom snacks? profondo asbo
  • Score: -1

11:16pm Thu 17 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

cg1blue wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote: I would like to know if they have made any efforts to find a smaller property, and thus reverse the cut in their benefits. The story says there are no smaller properties available, but have this family actually tried? I suspect a lot of people in this situation don't even try to move. Mrs Whitby doesn't say if they have tried. If they have tried then I would have some sympathy. And before some (e.g. ThisYear) say "why should they try to move?", it is the same for private house owners. You have to downsize when times are hard.
Do you think the paper would say there were no smaller properties available if there were? Im sure those who could downsize did...but if there are no places to downsize to then the rest are penalised for that fact.. Even Joseph Heller wouldn't of written about it.
We all know the Echo likes to sensationalise, so yes, I do think they would say there were no smaller places available if there were
Then perhaps you can post up any evidence that they are lying...
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: I would like to know if they have made any efforts to find a smaller property, and thus reverse the cut in their benefits. The story says there are no smaller properties available, but have this family actually tried? I suspect a lot of people in this situation don't even try to move. Mrs Whitby doesn't say if they have tried. If they have tried then I would have some sympathy. And before some (e.g. ThisYear) say "why should they try to move?", it is the same for private house owners. You have to downsize when times are hard.[/p][/quote]Do you think the paper would say there were no smaller properties available if there were? Im sure those who could downsize did...but if there are no places to downsize to then the rest are penalised for that fact.. Even Joseph Heller wouldn't of written about it.[/p][/quote]We all know the Echo likes to sensationalise, so yes, I do think they would say there were no smaller places available if there were[/p][/quote]Then perhaps you can post up any evidence that they are lying... ThisYear
  • Score: -4

11:17pm Thu 17 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

I-say-you-say wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
cg1blue wrote: I would like to know if they have made any efforts to find a smaller property, and thus reverse the cut in their benefits. The story says there are no smaller properties available, but have this family actually tried? I suspect a lot of people in this situation don't even try to move. Mrs Whitby doesn't say if they have tried. If they have tried then I would have some sympathy. And before some (e.g. ThisYear) say "why should they try to move?", it is the same for private house owners. You have to downsize when times are hard.
Do you think the paper would say there were no smaller properties available if there were? Im sure those who could downsize did...but if there are no places to downsize to then the rest are penalised for that fact.. Even Joseph Heller wouldn't of written about it.
Yes I think the paper would say that.

It's my understanding that the Council has a lot of sheltered accomodation properties going spare (usually 1 bedroom and ground floor). If the son went and got his own place (also possible through Basildon Council although more likely to be 3rd floor studio/1 bed), then at their age they can transfer there and downsize as well as have spare money to enjoy themselves.
Have you checked with the council to see if that is indeed an option for them...or are you just giving a suggestion off the top of your head.
[quote][p][bold]I-say-you-say[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: I would like to know if they have made any efforts to find a smaller property, and thus reverse the cut in their benefits. The story says there are no smaller properties available, but have this family actually tried? I suspect a lot of people in this situation don't even try to move. Mrs Whitby doesn't say if they have tried. If they have tried then I would have some sympathy. And before some (e.g. ThisYear) say "why should they try to move?", it is the same for private house owners. You have to downsize when times are hard.[/p][/quote]Do you think the paper would say there were no smaller properties available if there were? Im sure those who could downsize did...but if there are no places to downsize to then the rest are penalised for that fact.. Even Joseph Heller wouldn't of written about it.[/p][/quote]Yes I think the paper would say that. It's my understanding that the Council has a lot of sheltered accomodation properties going spare (usually 1 bedroom and ground floor). If the son went and got his own place (also possible through Basildon Council although more likely to be 3rd floor studio/1 bed), then at their age they can transfer there and downsize as well as have spare money to enjoy themselves.[/p][/quote]Have you checked with the council to see if that is indeed an option for them...or are you just giving a suggestion off the top of your head. ThisYear
  • Score: -6

11:21pm Thu 17 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

southend-man wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
southend-man wrote:
IT'S NOT A TAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES IT IS!
No it isn't. A tax is when you earn money and the government takes some of it away, this is the government giving people a bit less money because they are abusing the money which they have been given by living in a house too big for them.

Notice the verbs, for a tax it is take and for the bedroom subsidy it is give. They are antonyms, ergo IT IS NOT A TAX.
You limited the definition of what Tax is.

They are awarded money and then it is taken back in the form of a tax/penalty.
[quote][p][bold]southend-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southend-man[/bold] wrote: IT'S NOT A TAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]YES IT IS![/p][/quote]No it isn't. A tax is when you earn money and the government takes some of it away, this is the government giving people a bit less money because they are abusing the money which they have been given by living in a house too big for them. Notice the verbs, for a tax it is take and for the bedroom subsidy it is give. They are antonyms, ergo IT IS NOT A TAX.[/p][/quote]You limited the definition of what Tax is. They are awarded money and then it is taken back in the form of a tax/penalty. ThisYear
  • Score: -8

3:54pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Alekhine says...

Got perpetual motion.
Got perpetual motion. Alekhine
  • Score: -1

6:01pm Fri 18 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

Alekhine wrote:
Got perpetual motion.
Got issues and can't help it.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Got perpetual motion.[/p][/quote]Got issues and can't help it. ThisYear
  • Score: -2

5:04pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Jezza14 says...

cg1blue wrote:
Secondly, I understand it must be difficult for the older occupants to find jobs (although if you went to places like Singapore you'd see over 60s taking jobs in McDonalds etc.), but I seem to remember the son living in this property is in his 20s. Has there been any explanation as to why he is not working and helping his parents out of this situation?
Please don't tell me there is no work out there for a man in his 20s.

As others have stated, there is something not quite right about this story...
This is the whole point. He IS working, and the arrears are NOTHING TO DO with the 'bedroom tax' - they are down to the deduction in Housing Benefit as a result of having an adult child living with them. This article is inaccurate on almost every point.

The son should be paying his parents to help pay the rent.
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: Secondly, I understand it must be difficult for the older occupants to find jobs (although if you went to places like Singapore you'd see over 60s taking jobs in McDonalds etc.), but I seem to remember the son living in this property is in his 20s. Has there been any explanation as to why he is not working and helping his parents out of this situation? Please don't tell me there is no work out there for a man in his 20s. As others have stated, there is something not quite right about this story...[/p][/quote]This is the whole point. He IS working, and the arrears are NOTHING TO DO with the 'bedroom tax' - they are down to the deduction in Housing Benefit as a result of having an adult child living with them. This article is inaccurate on almost every point. The son should be paying his parents to help pay the rent. Jezza14
  • Score: 5

6:53pm Sat 19 Apr 14

profondo asbo says...

Alekhine wrote:
Got perpetual motion.
got dramamine?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Got perpetual motion.[/p][/quote]got dramamine? profondo asbo
  • Score: -2

9:51pm Sun 20 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Got perpetual motion.
got dramamine?
got punctuationitis.
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: Got perpetual motion.[/p][/quote]got dramamine?[/p][/quote]got punctuationitis. ThisYear
  • Score: -1

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