See tax legislation and PWC for more details...

Edited for accuracy

Loopholes?
If you want to surcharge for extra bedrooms, surely you need to define what constitutes a bedroom?
In the case of Leeds, they are merely saying that if it's too small to be a bedroom, it's not a bedroom.
Anyway, it's in Leeds ... do you live there?

He was very quick to respond to my initial question, with a nice, straightforward "yes", but must have been busy since I asked whether he'd been misquoted and whether he old clarify.

This government is THE worst I can remember for coming up with ideas that are basically unworkable or even down right illegal (Mrs May leading the way on that one). At least under Thatcher while you might disagree with what they were doing they gave the impression of basic competence. And when they did screw up it was still a time where ministers resigned!

IDS will when he appears before that committee just do his usual and shout louder.

God knows what would have happened had he won an election when he was leader of the Tory party.

I would disagree however with the notion that it is deliberate that things progress as you say where they legislate and then sort out the legalities afterwards. I really do believe that they do not think things through and it is basic incompetence that leaves them open to legal challenge.

IDS and Co certainly have an agenda IMO and it is a nasty one but I don't think they are competent enough to see their own legislation through without being caught out.

I've told the story before, but ticking on for two years ago, when negotiations were taking place with government over its planned changed to the public service pensions schemes, the lead government negotiators were Francis Maude and Danny Alexander.

The various unions had balloted for industrial action on the issue and, having received the results, were busy setting dates etc.

The government suggested that they delay the date of any action. It was explained to them that, under employment legislation that had been enacted by Conservative administrations of yore, this could not be done. Action has to be taken within a set, limited time after the result of any ballot (30 days, IIRC), or there has to be a new ballot (a costly exercise).

Mr Maude, who is a lawyer apparently, suggested that they could 'suspend' the law for a week or so.

It was suggested to him that you cannot just 'suspend' law when convenient.

He sent away a civil servant to check.

The civil servant returned to confirm that no, you cannot simply 'suspend' a law when it takes your fancy.

This is the stuff of [iThe Thick of It[/i.

Armando Iannucci must've thought all his birthdays had come at once when this bunch came to power. He should be eternally grateful for them writing his scripts on his behalf. Talk about life imitating art

Nah, Major, Blair and brown were all capable of coming up with some poor legislation, they were just better at putting a coat of gloss on it.

I don't think any of those governments had to actually back track on their legislation or rush out amendments anything like as often as this one which was the point I was making. Things like selling off woodlands and the pasty tax spring to mind.

All those governments enacted poor legislation but at least they seemed to know how to do it!

I don't recall them having a vote of no confidence in their own Queens' speech either.
Or having to enlist the opposition to push a bill through that they couldn't get support for in their own party.
Bloody hopeless.
No wonder they haven't won a majority in a general election for two decades.

The last government were experts in the art of leaking ideas, the ones that got the headlines and people outraged got binned, this mob are just not as well schooled in the art.

[urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/30/grant-shapps-benefit-reform-watchdog-uksa-_n_3357945.html?utm_hp_ref=uk[/url

Grant Shapps only slightly misinterpreted "benefit cheats" numbers too.

I suppose its easy to mistake the number 20,000 and read 900,000 instead though - if your incompetent or a spiv.

Some of the stuff this lot do is done not because they didn't think to test it out because it might be unpopular - they don't care about that. They still end up having to have a rethink because they made a balls up of drafting the legislation in the first place and the rethink isn't always to withdraw it either but to try and fix it.

Exactly. I am in a small 2 bedroom, 1 reception room bungalow. There are approximately 15 or so bungalows of this style in my cul de sac. None of them have their lofts converted. At least 6 of those use their "spare bedroom" as either a dining room or a utility room as the kitchen is very small. I don't as we have a conservatory that acts as my dining room, but even so, I don't have a bed in my "spare bedroom". We are mortgaged so the bedroom tax doesn't effect us but if it did and I wasn't disabled I would seriously be arguing about what my "spare room" is used for. Unless it specifically states on the plans of the property who are they to judge what is a bedroom and what isn't?

It would appear, according to the article that I linked to at the start, that the only requirement for a bedroom to be classed as a bedroom is if it says bedroom on the lease - if you've rented a "three bedroomed house" for instance and you declare that you and your two boys aged under 10 yrs will be living there, then that is as much information as they need to reduce your housing benefit, it really seems to be that simple.

I'm inclined to believe that its been drafted so simply as well because the solution from Leeds City Council is so simple as to not actually be a loophole but to have found a wide open gate through which to casually stroll without shutting it behind you.

The only downside I suppose is that their rental income may reduce in future if they have to reclassify three bed houses to two beds and an unclassified room, but maybe that won't happen either and in any case its still cheaper, and therefore more cost effective to me as a ratepayer, than having to prosecute thousands of council house tenants who are in arrears with absolutely no chance of ever repaying - it also saves me the embarrassment of having to walk through this city in future and see families of former council house tenants living rough on the streets or being thrown out of B&B accommodation during daylight hours.

Still no further response from Barry Anderson.

He must be very busy.

I am agreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that the last lot were just as bad when it came to poor legislation.

It'd be cheaper anyway mate, as has already been shown in London. Some families have already been evicted but the council has a legal duty to house them, so they're paying for B&B, or paying even higher rents (with concommitant higher housing subsidy) for a smaller unit in the private sector.

As has already been said, it's "The Thick Of It" in real-time

A good friend of mine gave up his two bed house and moved to a one bed GF flat to avoid having to pay the extra only to be hit with a double whammy today, he has been informed his incapacity has been stopped and as of end of June he will be transferred onto job seekers and expected to find work. He is 59 years old and had polio as a child, despite being inconvenience with leg problems he got an apprenticeship as a plumber and worked up to having an accident (caused by his worsening leg issues) and damaged his back and his hip on his good leg. He was off work for months and refused incapacity at first and got a job in a warehouse (office based), but he could not continue and was put on incapacity around 9 years ago. He has progressively got worse and cannot walk too far.

This assessment was done by 'tick box' and he was not assessed by a specialist, even though his GP has said he is incapable of any meaningful work. He is appealing against it.

We are not talking a work shy scrounger (as the Tories are fond of labelling people), but someone who was devastated to stop work. If this is what this government (both sides of it) is about, the sooner they are consigned to history the better.

Are these assessments done by an assessor in a meeting or personally? If in a meeting, does the assessed person have to sign at the end?

The reason I ask is that I believe people need to be firm and where the rigid form is inappropriate to their circumstances refuse to fill in the boxes (if completing personally). Just write next to relevant questions "form wholly inapproriate - see attached notes" and then fill in free form explaining circumstances, with doctor's / whatever report(s) attached. If someone else fills in and requests a signature, just refuse to sign until amended as I suggest. That's certainly what I do with daft forms. If the assessor then goes back and unilaterally makes up the answers would they have no chance at appeal. Make the buggers do some work for their fees rather than ticking boxes. If administering the system starts to cost either ATOS or whoever of HMG they'll soon drop the silly process.

Solution - Tax Oxygen.

Doesn't fit the coalition model.
Now, if you'd said "Privatise oxygen", you'd have a seat in the Lords by now.

I presume he was assessed by an Atos Health Care Professional? Which could be anything from a Doctor, to a nurse to a physiotherapist. Tell him to appeal and provide Atos with every single piece of medical proof he can get his hands on. I got my physio, consultant, rheumatology nurse, hip specialist, knee specialist, podiatrist and GP to write letters. In the "good old days" if the DWP wanted any extra information they would write to your GP or consultant but with Atos the onus is on the patient to provide every bit of medical evidence. I think he has upto 28 days to appeal and he will recieve the appeal rate money. Be warned though, the appeals are taking weeks even months before they are reviewed.

I know how he feels, I have been fighting this battle with them for 2 years now. Tell him to never give up as that is what they rely on you to do. Good luck for him

People have aready done things similar or queried the credentials of the "health care professional" and they have been put down as a "no show" and their money withdrawn. I know there is a lot going on around mental health and having an Atos assesment as mental health has to be assessed by a fully qualified mental health care specialist not just some random physiotherapist that Atos are employing......watch this space!!

O/T but related to the above posts - there's an interesting letter in last week's [iPrivate Eye[/i about wheelchair access to ATOS assessment centres (following an article in the previous issue about the lack of accessible centres).

Effectively the opinion is that if people [ucan[/u get in when there is no wheelchair access they are not disabled, so potentially fit for work and if they [ucan't[/u get in, they are considered as "failed to attend" and have benefits stopped.

Quite far fetched, so possibly true.