Disabled Mum Set To Become First Person in Scotland Evicted Due To The Bedroom Tax

reply to post by andy06shake


I agree, Andy, but at the same time those disabled people need to take some responsibility for their own actions. There is a reason she is being evicted and that is because she quite clearly ignored all the letters and what have you about the arrears, then any subsequent help or assistance was refused as well.

She thought by sticking her head in the sand it would go away, but from personal experience mate, it doesn't, it just gets worse until you're forced to deal with it.

Now she has gone running to the paper about it, no doubt for quite selfish reasons, even though the situation is actually of her own making.

Disabled people do get a lot of help, Andy. It just so happens this particular one is a bit of an idiot and thought she could just ignore her problems.

reply to post by stumason


"Don't try to play on peoples emotions with language like "poor, wheelchair bound woman". She is a person, with her own mind and makes her own decisions - that is all."

I don't need to play on people's emotions, the picture posted should be enough to achieve the desired effect for anyone with an ounce of integrity! LoL

You still have not answered my question. If you personally were one of the bailiffs employed to evict this lady could you find it in your heart to do so? Because i will say this i could not in all good conscience put that woman out of her home. I would lose my job first.

Have you considered that the reason the lady in question has not responded to their correspondences is because she is terrified or cannot get to a post box? She is after all wheelchair bound!

Originally posted by andy06shake
I don't need to play on people's emotions, the picture posted should be enough to achieve the desired effect for anyone with an ounce of integrity! LoL

Actually, if that is the intent of the image, I'm afraid it isn't my integrity that's in question matey.

The word you're actually looking for in that sentence though would be compassion, not integrity. And you're right, I don't have much, especially for people who put themselves in difficult situations.

Originally posted by andy06shake
You still have not answered my question. If you personally were one of the bailiffs employed to evict this lady could you find it in your heart to do so?

If I was a Bailiff, that would be my job and it would be ordered by a Court. I'm not a Bailiff though, precisely because I don't wish to deal with people like that, so it is ultimately a pointless question designed to try and paint me in a bad light.

Originally posted by andy06shake
Have you considered that the reason the lady in question has not responded to their correspondences is because she is terrified or cannot get to a post box? She is after all wheelchair bound!

Oh, give over. She isn't terrified and she can get to a post box - after all, she's happy to pose for images outside her house, on the ramp she's had built and was perfectly able to contact the Newspaper.....

I would like to point out that social housing in the UK is not a given right to anyone who wants one. Its an entitlement from the tax payers to those who need social help. So for those who run up arrears and are not using the home for its proper use, regardless of status, then on behalf of the tax payers, the Council is entitled to take away that property.

Ignorance is bliss for some.

reply to post by sussy

I would like to point out that social housing in the UK is not a given right to anyone who wants one. Its an entitlement from the tax payers to those who need social help.

Its given as a right to the Royal Family. I wonder how many empty rooms the Queen has in her number of state owned houses. Do they need the social help?

reply to post by stumason


"If I was a Bailiff, that would be my job and it would be ordered by a Court. I'm not a Bailiff though, precisely because I don't wish to deal with people like that, so it is ultimately a pointless question designed to try and paint me in a bad light."

A question is exactly that. I was asking you to place yourself in a hypothetical situation. If you don't want to answer it that's fine. The only people who I am trying to paint in a bad light are the people responsible for this atrocity, the local council.

And please don't tell me what words to use i said integrity and i meant integrity.

Our ideologies so it would seem are worlds apart. I know im a good person and I hope my heart is in the right place.

reply to post by sussy


"I would like to point out that social housing in the UK is not a given right to anyone who wants one. Its an entitlement from the tax payers to those who need social help. So for those who run up arrears and are not using the home for its proper use, regardless of status, then on behalf of the tax payers, the Council is entitled to take away that property. "

The woman is wheelchair bound and obviously entitled to social housing so that's not really up for debate.

To start eviction proceeding over £248 is a little heavy handed to say the least. It's plain to see that she is being made an example of. They are testing the water so to speak to see if they are going to get away with the eviction which they wont if enough people stand up to them!

"Ignorance is bliss for some."

And life is pain for others!

This woman is being evicted not because of the bedroom tax. She's being evicted because of her own poor financial management. She's choosing to be evicted.

The very most that a householder in South Lanarkshire has to pay because of the bedroom tax is nine pounds per week. That's a packet of cigarettes plus a loaf of bread.

If she's severely disabled & living on her own, she has tax free benefits ... Incapacity Benefit/Income Support (or Employment Support Allowance) plus Disability Living Allowance of what, eighteen/nineteen thousand pounds per year PLUS most of her rent paid plus all her local taxes paid for her too.

Go google British social security rates if you doubt me. She's probably financially better off than any of us.

On top of that, someone can claim Carer's Allowance for looking after her and her carer can qualify for benefits in their own right. Then she's got all her other free things. Free prescriptions. Free healthcare. She'll have free bus travel, much reduced rail fares.

But she nails herself to the woe is me/look at me cross. Eviction. Her choice. Eviction is her choice.

All for nine pounds per week.

I disagree with the Bedroom Tax. It's retrospective. The councils haven't got enough stocks of one bedroom houses to allow the turnover the government wants. Plus it's cruel. Theres no understanding that a home is very different to a house on a numbercruncher's stock list of tenancies, people adore their homes.

But don't insult my intelligence by claiming this woman is hard done by.

Originally posted by andy06shake
A question is exactly that. I was asking you to place yourself in a hypothetical situation. If you don't want to answer it that's fine. The only people who I am trying to paint in a bad light are the people responsible for this atrocity, the local council.

It certainly seemed like you're asking me to place myself in hypothetical situation so you can obtain some sort of moral high ground.....

And if it is the local council you're trying to demonise, why the focus on the Government and the "bedroom tax"? Yes, the council may seem to be heavy handed over a relatively small amount of money, but you are wilfully ignoring (by virtue you refuse to quote or comment on the facts of the matter, but instead focus on hypotheticals) the pertinent facts - namely, she has ignored all attempts to mediate, leading to court action. The same as anyone else in the same situation - why are you trying to make out her case is any different?

Originally posted by andy06shake
And please don't tell me what words to use i said integrity and i meant integrity.

Then you used the word incorrectly.

I can have absolute integrity and yet have the opinion I do. The reason I keep my integrity is because I am consistent in my views and stick to the facts. Integrity is defined as an adherence to a set of moral or ethical principles - this applies to me - it doesn't define what those moral or ethical principles are, however..

I do, however, lack compassion in this situation.

Originally posted by andy06shake
Our ideologies so it would seem are worlds apart. I know im a good person and I hope my heart is in the right place.

I don't doubt it - but you can't look at the world through rose-tinted specs mate. She has rent arrears, she ignored all communication and support, she is getting evicted. The only reason this is any different, in your eyes, is because she is disabled. Why should she be treated any differently? She is only physically disabled, not metally, so is entirely in control of her own actions.

Also, one has to ask, why doesn't she look for work? She seems perfectly capable of doing light office duties. Scoliosis is a manageable affliction, with no real impediment to leading a full life for most sufferers aside from the most exceptional cases, which are rare to say the least.

Have you watched that programme on C4 called Welfare Britain 1949? I recommend you do - there was a chap on there with spina biffida who they managed to get into work and he cried with joy and getting a job. Meanwhile, there was some fat, afro-Caribbean woman with arthritis who refused point blank to work, listing a whole slew of medical reasons, despite the fact she was far more physically capable than the young dude who was born with a condition - ...

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by andy06shake

 

The woman in question is severely disabled! She was housed in the flat that was kitted out to meet her specific medical requirements over two years ago. Its her home!

Calm down bud, I never said I agreed with kicking her out of her home. However I do believe that she should pay the fine if she cannot prove that her son is living with her, just because she's disabled shouldn't allow her to game the system and get away with it. Disabled people are always asking to be treated equally, it should be no different in this case. It's not a huge sum of money anyway, if she cannot afford to pay it immediately than I'm sure she will be able to pay it off slowly over time. But you are right, there is no reason she should have to lose her house.

edit on 22/8/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Well here, if you share custody and have visits from your child, and are in BC Housing, you get the big 3 or 4 bedroom.

Though we don't have any penalties for whatever size of home you otherwise can get, for most often its just the luck of the draw.

So having a son is enough to prove she would be spending time with him.

reply to post by stumason


Stumason my wee Granny is in better shape than this woman and she receives round the clock care from both family members and carers.

Im sure if the lady was able to work or seek gainful employment she would be doing so. After all who wants to sit in a house doing nothing. Especially if she's in a wheelchair. I imagine the boredom and loneliness would become unbearable after a while. Never mind daytime television programing which is enough these days to make anybody want to get a job. LoL

We don't know all the circumstances, i imagine if the woman is capable of working then the DWP would make her do so.

reply to post by stumason


Double post, ma bad.

reply to post by andy06shake


Cant she just be moved to a new house with less rooms and the same disabled access?

Or did she refuse and make this all ALOT harder than it needed to be knowing she could stir up outrage?

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by andy06shake

 

Cant she just be moved to a new house with less rooms and the same disabled access?

Or did she refuse and make this all ALOT harder than it needed to be knowing she could stir up outrage?

Seems rather redundant considering the home she was given is already kitted out to meet her requirements. I don't imagine they are that many 1 bedroom flats available in the area that meet the Woman's needs. So you have the issue of cost involved in them rehousing her. They will be required to meet the ladies medical and social requirements in any new property they move her to so it would probably work out cheaper leaving her where she is.

By the way I imagine we are talking about 1 extra bedroom here not 3 or 4.

In my opinion the woman should be allowed to remain in the property given to her in the first place since after two years she has obviously made it her home and desires to keep living there. Any shortfall in rent should be covered by the discretionary fund. But what do I know.

Originally posted by andy06shake
In my opinion the woman should be allowed to remain in the property given to her in the first place since after two years she has obviously made it her home and desires to keep living there.

I'll just stop paying my mortgage then & use your argument with HBOS plc, we'll see where that gets me.

There is a similar analogy. In 1993/4/5 the government abolished "mortgage interest relief at source", or MIRAS, which meant that mortgage holders no longer qualified for tax relief on the first thirty thousand pounds of their mortgages. They all had to pay extra to their lenders, up to thirty or forty pounds each month.

They didn't refuse to pay the "mortgage tax". They just had to pay it, they sucked it up. Otherwise they would've been evicted too, this time by their mortgage lenders.

Same principle.

reply to post by andy06shake


Being disabled doesn't allow her to throw a tantrum if she doesn't get things she doesn't need.

If there is a more suitable place for her to live with the same REQUIRED accommodations then she should move. I don't know if there is or if there isn't... but if there is, then everything is as it should be.

Don't forget that this nation has become "I expect to have" nation. It doesn't work like that anymore. And it has rules and regulations concerning housing. That is a fact and with this woman, having gone to the papers, she wants to suck you all in. She is manipulating her position.
The council do not just chuck people onto the streets. This must have been an on-going situation for a long time. And she has had all of her chances to co-operate in a fair way.

reply to post by sussy


"Don't forget that this nation has become "I expect to have" nation. It doesn't work like that anymore."

Granted but the Woman is obviously in need of social care and housing. Last time I looked our government is still required to do so just that.

"And it has rules and regulations concerning housing. That is a fact and with this woman, having gone to the papers, she wants to suck you all in. She is manipulating her position."

She has obviously went to the papers because she has no other recourse than to bring her situation to the public's attention. What wrong with that, hows that sucking people in?

"The council do not just chuck people onto the streets."

Lets hope not for her sake.

"This must have been an on-going situation for a long time. And she has had all of her chances to co-operate in a fair way."

The way i'm reading this is that the council or housing association have started eviction proceedings over £248 arrears, that's harsh in anybody's book! She is being made an example of IMHO.

Originally posted by andy06shake
She has obviously went to the papers because she has no other recourse than to bring her situation to the public's attention. What wrong with that, hows that sucking people in?

The way i'm reading this is that the council or housing association have started eviction proceedings over £248 arrears, that's harsh in anybody's book! She is being made an example of IMHO.

She has no other recourse ? Well, apart from the other recourse which is to pay the nine pounds each week to the council out of her nearly twenty grand a year in tax free, cash in her hand social security benefit.

What choice do the council have apart from eviction. As Stumason says, the woman is refusing to cooperate with the council on any level at all. They're even offering her financial help to pay the shortfall ... but she prefers the company of tabloid journalists rather than benefits officers.

Oh woe is me !!!

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


Have to say I think the poor woman should be left alone to live out her days in what she considers her home.

If that makes me a soft case for a hard luck story then so be it!

I was always taught to respect and help the old and infirm.

Maybe that's why my opinion favours her side of the argument, ive said my peace regarding this subject.

Time I think for me to butt out for a while and let greater minds prevail.