The change in rules was always going to cause problems for some, they should have been able to act quicker than they have eventually done in these cases.
The change in rules was always going to cause problems for some, they should have been able to act quicker than they have eventually done in these cases.
Cassa...but it did, and that is what is so wrong. There is no common sense or sympathy forthcoming from this present Tory regime, not that I am surprised in the least.
It’s absolutely right for the government to make changes to a much abused system but in genuine circumstances such as this there must be leeway for common sense to be applied.
also "put them through hell" might well be an overstatement too - according to the HC judgemet, the council covered and continued to cover the shortfall, so it seems (on the surface anyway) that they are the ones who hve persued this, even though they didnt have to.
I sound like i am support the cuts here, and im not, and i agree the legal process has taken ages, but they could have stopped it whenever they wanted and not been out of pocket
An excellent ruling it makes perfect sense. The rejected cases were definitely of less merit ( as far as we are allowed to know) and were correctly rejected.
bednobs , They could not have stopped when they wanted! The case was ongoing, if they had stopped the council would have won by default.
(which ,I am certain the council hoped would happen)
They would have had to pay back all the overpayment!
This has now set an important precedent for the future. Councils will have to be much more careful in future on implementing the 'bedroom tax' where there is a severely disabled person with needs for a carer involved.
of course they could have stopped. It doesnt matter monetarily to the local authority 0 - they were paying a discretionary amount to cover the loss anyway. Whent he family lost at the high court, they didnt need to go on to the supreme court
Bednobs....yes this family DID need to go to the Supreme Court....from the BBC link above ::::
"Judges dismissed a government appeal against a Court of Appeal ruling in favour of Paul and Susan Rutherford, who care for their grandson Warren.
The Supreme Court ruled the housing benefit cut discriminated against them"
Because the Government lost this at the Supreme Court, the Government will have to be more careful in the future, when they have similar cases to consider. The Government could have accepted that they were wrong at any time, thus saving much public money and time being wasted.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.