CAB looks to over rule the government on the bedroom tax

[DRiddle]

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/hundreds-set-for-bedroom-tax-boost-1-5993022

This can't be legal? Can it? The DWP introduced this  "to provide a more "targeted approach" for those most in need and people are assessed as either in crisis, or non crisis, depending on their circumstances, with people in crisis for example classed as those in need of help after flooding, a gas explosion or house fire".

Surely a blanket policy of off setting everyone's 'bedroom tax' wasn't what the DWP had in mind.

[fred c]

Which ever way "The Dear Leader" want to put it... At the end of the day it is an Increase of £346,000 on our rates.

Shane might well email Big Eck about the legaility of this new Tax, a tax that is payable only by the residents of Hartlepool.

[ARC86]

Im with the council on this one.. David you wrongly assume that everyone paying the bedroom tax is a scrounger.. seems that you have bought the governments argument re all benefit recipients are scroungers.. any help for any family in town in these hard times should be welcomed not criticised. I wonder how many people in charge had ever actually heard of the under occupancy rate before the bedroom tax came along

[DRiddle]

ARC, at what point in my post did I even state ANYTHING to that effect? Don't accuse me of saying something I in no way stated at all.

I actually don't support the b-e-ne-f-i-t c-u-t, but at the same time I don't see how or why one local council can essentially off set it.

[ARC86]

Sorry i should have stated your post on the Hartlepool Mail site implied this

I dont see how it can be illegal to offset it.. the council have an underspend and are proposing to spend it in this way.. be very interesting to see who votes against it, i would suggest nobody will at all will given the grant is theoretically for housing purposes anyway

[DRiddle]

I disagree. This is my post from The Mail.

[This is starting to reach a stage where people are thinking Councillor Akers-Belcher is deliberately trying to wind up the electorate.

This BENEFIT CUT (it's not a tax, it's a benefit cut) directly effects 4% of the people who live in the town.

Whilst I don't agree with the cut being done in this way, it's worth remembering the majority of the other 96% of people it DOESN'T effect are already paying income tax, NI, high council tax etc.

Despite that, we're getting significant reductions in services, second class health care, land fill sites and a whole whost of other nonsensical decisions from our elected councillors.

Now we're being told that public money at local government level will be spent essentially 'over ruling' a decision made by central government.

That's the stage we're at in Hartlepool. Councillor Akers-Belcher now thinks he knows better than the Prime Minster and the people (like it or not) we democratically elected to run the country.

Hopefully, this will be shown to be illegal, i'd be shocked if it isn't.

Another day, another shocking decision from our council./quote]

In no way do I even come close to implying, let alone driectly stating, that "everyone paying the benefit tax is a scrounger".

The grant is for 'housing' yes, but as stated in The Mail, it's housing issues as in emergency flooding issues, or whose house as burnt down.

The grant isn't there, in my opinion, to offset a benefit cut.

As for voting against it, i'd like to see the conservative (or 3 of them) who overtly supports the subsidy of a benefit cut which has filtered down directly from the Tory top brass.... 

[ARC86]

I stand corrected.. but i also stand by my point that any help no matter how small or large should be welcomed for those at the bottom, after all those at the top got a 5% cut in income tax.. so if the grant can offset the bedroom tax then i support it.

i would say Shane would vote against this measure as he is a true loyal tory, but the rest im not so sure about

[DRiddle]

I'm certainly not saying things arefair, and I totally agree with helping those at the bottom. I don't feel this is the right way to do it though. I honestly can't see how this can be deemed 'legal' by the DWP.

[fred c]

I stand corrected.. but i also stand by my point that any help no matter how small or large should be welcomed for those at the bottom, after all those at the top got a 5% cut in income tax.. so if the grant can offset the bedroom tax then i support it.

i would say Shane would vote against this measure as he is a true loyal tory, but the rest im not so sure about

I take your Point about the people who need help the most, should be the ones to receive it......

However I wonder about that Philosphy when it comes from "The Dear Leader & His Consort"

StephenAkers-Belcher ‏@CllrSAB 21h

Get tickets for the civic dinner 20th Sept the Grand Hotel. 5 Course meal Motown Band pre dinner entertainment and a cocktail on arrival£40


£40 Then a few more "Cocktails" your probably looking at £60 or £70 quid per head.............

Still i suppose they can afford it, can anyone remind me how much public money goes into Westbrooke Ave per annum ?

[The Great Dictator]

I wonder if Carol Jeffries buys 50 tickets ?

[stokoe]

G.D is this the above person


http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hartlepoolpost.co.uk%2Ffiles%2Fmanor%2520accounts%252020082011.pdf&ei=1IAfUtWtBYOphAf4-oCwCw&usg=AFQjCNHACT8B2p83d8e9bviFFrdJ6ENwag&bvm=bv.51495398,d.d2k

[rabbit]

Back in April, the Government (via the DWP) transferred the responsibility for administering certain funds
over to  Local Councils.

It saved the DWP time and money in checking through all of the claims and awarding benefits as deemed appropriate. This also reduced the government`s "central spending".

The DWP would no doubt have been aware of the likely increase in demand due to the application of the so called "bedroom tax"

Apparently the Local Councils were to award benefits (but not money) in the form of vouchers or other means of assistance.

What may have happened since April is that our council have struggled somewhat with the new workload in checking through the numerous claims and making decisions on who gets what and how much,

So this has lead to a surplus of money in this " Local Welfare Assistance" fund

It would be much easier (they now think) in not bothering with all that form checking, and all the person hours involved.
Why not just use the surplus to offset the bedroom tax.?

Brilliant!!! except I don`t believe the government had that in mind.

[DRiddle]

That's what I mean Rabbit. I don't see this as even being close to being what the DWP had in mind for the money.

I THINK the way most councils have set about establishing criteria for distributing this money involves (amongst other things), that the claimant has not received, or is eligible to receive, help from other public funds for the same needs.

Given that everyone who HBC are hoping to give the money to are obviously already in receipt of public funds for the same need (in the form of housing benefit), if most other councils have set out there rules in line with DWP guidelines, I don't see how this can be allowed?

If the other councils up and down the land have that in their rules, which I'm led to believe they do, then I don't see how this can get the green light from the DWP, as the other councils are presumably following the DWP's own guidelines.

Surely no government department doles out a load of money and says "here, use that to basically over rule a tax based decision from another government department"?

In no way do I claim to be an expert, I just can't see this being allowed.

It's tantamount to the government reducing jobseekers allowance by £10 a month, and then allocating councils a pot of money to help get people back to work, and the council saying "Right, lets give a tenner a month to everyone out of work....that'll help them".

[testing times]

"Coun Akers-Belcher, who said it will help put money back into the local economy, said if the plans are backed by full council then people will either get the money as a credit on their account or it could help clear rent arrears."

Aren't we getting into dangerous waters here? How many of those currently with arrears are able to find the money to smoke, drink or pay their subscriptions to Sky Sports? The idea that it's now OK to run up rent arrears because money provided by other taxpayers will bail you out surely sets a dangerous precedent.

There doesn't seem to be any attempt here to separate out those in genuine serious need from those who choose to spend what money they have on the wrong priorities.

[steveL]

I think this is part of what will eventually become an obvious and on-going charactersistic of the current majority group - present them with an underspend and their first instinct is always to find someway to spend it rather than set it against the effects of seemingly ever decreasing grant funding. They don't do prudence.

HBC has to find £4m in savings to balance its 2014/15 budget and £346,000 would have taken a significant bite out of that. Instead it will be used as a temporary prop to what, let's face it, is a group of largely non-working, Labour voters - i.e. a large part of their core vote.. Those same Labour voters will, along with everyone else, soon start noticing the effects of even more service reductions brought on through budget cuts.

The worst of this is that we are now at the stage when some of the most genuinely vulnerable of people are going to be hit by service cuts. Using the money to help stave off those cuts would have been a far better use of the money than this broad-sweep giveaway.

Some council officer has pointed out that there's no guarantee that this funding stream will continue; so I'll make a prediction. When the DWP wakes up to how this money is being spent they will cease any such future funding overnight.