Bedroom tax refund delay woe for householders

Council chiefs in the North-East say they are struggling to find hundreds of people unlawfully charged the ‘bedroom tax’ after a Government blunder.

Council chiefs in the North-East say they are struggling to find hundreds of people unlawfully charged the ‘bedroom tax’ after a Government blunder.

First published in News The Northern Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Parliamentary Correspondent

COUNCIL chiefs in the North-East say they are struggling to find hundreds of people unlawfully charged the ‘bedroom tax’ after a Government blunder.

They are all residents who have lived in the same local council or housing association property since 1996 – making them exempt from the controversial measure.

However, they have wrongly been deducted hundreds of pounds of their housing benefit, because they were deemed to have spare bedrooms.

All must now be refunded, after the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) admitted tenants in the same home for more than 17 years should not have been hit.

Already, more than 1,400 people in the region have been promised refunds, including no fewer than 724 known to be living in Newcastle.

But Durham County Council has hit problems, because it is forced to rely on housing records from many years before it was created in 2009.

The authority is understood to be scrambling to put together documents from the seven district councils that were abolished five years ago.

Meanwhile, Middlesbrough Council has not yet been unable to identify all its residents wrongly charged because of problems with IT software.

At Westminster, Labour has seized on the problems to warn the bedroom tax – which it has vowed to axe, if it wins back power – had descended into a “fiasco”.

Rachel Reeves, Labour’s work and pensions spokeswoman, said: “The Government have been telling local authorities to take housing benefit away from people who were, in fact, legally entitled to it all along.

“Most of these people were already in vulnerable positions and will have been pushed even further into severe hardship as a result of this Government’s errors.”

However, Labour’s bid to prevent the Government closing the loophole – to ensure no-one else escapes the clampdown – was easily defeated in the Commons this week.

The removal of the ‘spare room subsidy’ – the Government’s term – cuts housing benefit by 14 per cent for one extra bedroom and 25 per cent where there are two.

Ministers say the policy will save £500m and free up larger homes for families living in cramped social housing properties.

But a DWP spokeswoman said: “We expect very few people to be affected by this - around 5,000 - and are working with councils to ensure affected claimants are kept informed.”

Don McLure, Durham’s corporate director of resources, said: “We are looking back through our own records and working with local housing providers to identify those people who are affected and who are entitled to a refund.”

And a Middlesbrough spokesman said: “The number of tenants affected by this change is not yet known.

“If it is identified that an under-occupancy charge should not apply, benefit claims will be amended from 1 April 2013.”

The other councils that have identified the numbers hit by the blunder are; Gateshead (150), Hartlepool (96), Scarborough (66), Harrogate (30) and North Tyneside (330).

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:52am Sat 1 Mar 14

David Lacey says...

Government blunder? No!! Local authorities have screwed up. Typical red Rob rubbish
Government blunder? No!! Local authorities have screwed up. Typical red Rob rubbish David Lacey
  • Score: 1

10:10am Sat 1 Mar 14

settheworldonfire says...

David Lacey wrote:
Government blunder? No!! Local authorities have screwed up. Typical red Rob rubbish
No matter who is wrong this needs sorting out....My mother in law has been affected by this...She is 100% owed money from d.c.c....She has been suffering from stress and anxiety due to the threats of eviction...We along with others have now issued legal proceedings against d.c.c. for the stress and worry they have caused...This will be paid by tax payers as usual..But guess what we do not care....
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Government blunder? No!! Local authorities have screwed up. Typical red Rob rubbish[/p][/quote]No matter who is wrong this needs sorting out....My mother in law has been affected by this...She is 100% owed money from d.c.c....She has been suffering from stress and anxiety due to the threats of eviction...We along with others have now issued legal proceedings against d.c.c. for the stress and worry they have caused...This will be paid by tax payers as usual..But guess what we do not care.... settheworldonfire
  • Score: 5

11:14am Sat 1 Mar 14

Jonn says...

Iain Ducan Smith f*cks up yet again!!!
Too late for the woman who comitted suicide, citing the bedroom tax in her suicide note but later found to be exempt from the bedroom tax.
Iain Ducan Smith f*cks up yet again!!! Too late for the woman who comitted suicide, citing the bedroom tax in her suicide note but later found to be exempt from the bedroom tax. Jonn
  • Score: 5

11:15am Sat 1 Mar 14

David Lacey says...

Good luck. I hope you get satisfaction from this cr*p council
Good luck. I hope you get satisfaction from this cr*p council David Lacey
  • Score: 2

11:30am Sat 1 Mar 14

Jonn says...

David Lacey wrote:
Government blunder? No!! Local authorities have screwed up. Typical red Rob rubbish
The bedroom tax is Government legislation, they made the error, they failed, their fault.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Government blunder? No!! Local authorities have screwed up. Typical red Rob rubbish[/p][/quote]The bedroom tax is Government legislation, they made the error, they failed, their fault. Jonn
  • Score: 3

11:36am Sat 1 Mar 14

punkrocker says...

lacey this is a government bungle not any councils. once again your comments blinded by your hatred of the poor. you say those charged with molesting children are innocent until proven guilty (the weatherman) but you class all the sick and unemployed as being guilty of being scrounging scum. what a horrid bitter man.
lacey this is a government bungle not any councils. once again your comments blinded by your hatred of the poor. you say those charged with molesting children are innocent until proven guilty (the weatherman) but you class all the sick and unemployed as being guilty of being scrounging scum. what a horrid bitter man. punkrocker
  • Score: 6

2:39pm Sat 1 Mar 14

punkrocker says...

Lacey should read todays independent newspaper and the shocking story of Mr Mark Wood who was deemed fit for work despite suffering ill health and who tragically starved to death because of his reduction in benefits. But blinkered poor hating lacey says no need for food banks etc as all poor are just free loading scroungers. What a horrid little man.
Lacey should read todays independent newspaper and the shocking story of Mr Mark Wood who was deemed fit for work despite suffering ill health and who tragically starved to death because of his reduction in benefits. But blinkered poor hating lacey says no need for food banks etc as all poor are just free loading scroungers. What a horrid little man. punkrocker
  • Score: 5

2:57pm Sat 1 Mar 14

David Lacey says...

I don't hate food banks. Some people need occasional help and food banks are there for them. But the fact is many "customers" are simply abusing the system.
.
Horrid? For telling the truth?
I don't hate food banks. Some people need occasional help and food banks are there for them. But the fact is many "customers" are simply abusing the system. . Horrid? For telling the truth? David Lacey
  • Score: -2

5:36pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Mike2012 says...

David Lacey wrote:
I don't hate food banks. Some people need occasional help and food banks are there for them. But the fact is many "customers" are simply abusing the system.
.
Horrid? For telling the truth?
Don't worry about the lefties, you're 100% right about the foodbanks!

Give 'em an inch..... they take a mile.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: I don't hate food banks. Some people need occasional help and food banks are there for them. But the fact is many "customers" are simply abusing the system. . Horrid? For telling the truth?[/p][/quote]Don't worry about the lefties, you're 100% right about the foodbanks! Give 'em an inch..... they take a mile. Mike2012
  • Score: -4

7:10pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Jonn says...

David Lacey wrote:
I don't hate food banks. Some people need occasional help and food banks are there for them. But the fact is many "customers" are simply abusing the system.
.
Horrid? For telling the truth?
Out of the 500,000 who used food banks in 2013, how many is 'some' and how many is 'many'?
Please provide statistics to back up your statements, thanks.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: I don't hate food banks. Some people need occasional help and food banks are there for them. But the fact is many "customers" are simply abusing the system. . Horrid? For telling the truth?[/p][/quote]Out of the 500,000 who used food banks in 2013, how many is 'some' and how many is 'many'? Please provide statistics to back up your statements, thanks. Jonn
  • Score: 5

7:45pm Sat 1 Mar 14

sineater says...

Punk rocker , People like Lacey can't admit the truth , he'd rather let people like mr Wood die than do that . What s**m letting people die for ideology !!! Lacey wonders why we don't vote tory in this region,he should visit mr Woods grave to find out why,what a disgraceful old rogue.
Punk rocker , People like Lacey can't admit the truth , he'd rather let people like mr Wood die than do that . What s**m letting people die for ideology !!! Lacey wonders why we don't vote tory in this region,he should visit mr Woods grave to find out why,what a disgraceful old rogue. sineater
  • Score: 1

8:47am Sun 2 Mar 14

oliviaden6 says...

They cannot find the people to rebate them? what a load of rubbish they were certainly more than capable of finding them to take the cash in the first place?
The culture of blame everyone else bar themselves man up shoulder the blame and deal with it?
They cannot find the people to rebate them? what a load of rubbish they were certainly more than capable of finding them to take the cash in the first place? The culture of blame everyone else bar themselves man up shoulder the blame and deal with it? oliviaden6
  • Score: 3

9:59am Sun 2 Mar 14

Copley23 says...

Mr Lacey is the one person on here who is telling the truth.

Councils were asked to provide details(to central government) when they changed from local districts to county, of how they were going to map this via their IT system. DCC quoted well under the odds in order to save themselves some money. What they did not do was allow for the pre-96 protected tenant details to be carried across.

They had the same problem with the benefits system generally and as a landlord, know all too well how long it takes them to undertake a simple income change on their benefit mainframe.

We all at the time said the merger was going to be a complete shambles......and it is. They simply aren't bright or caring enough to see how this could possible affect them. Arrogant.

This is completely a DCC dogs backside, not a central government one.
Mr Lacey is the one person on here who is telling the truth. Councils were asked to provide details(to central government) when they changed from local districts to county, of how they were going to map this via their IT system. DCC quoted well under the odds in order to save themselves some money. What they did not do was allow for the pre-96 protected tenant details to be carried across. They had the same problem with the benefits system generally and as a landlord, know all too well how long it takes them to undertake a simple income change on their benefit mainframe. We all at the time said the merger was going to be a complete shambles......and it is. They simply aren't bright or caring enough to see how this could possible affect them. Arrogant. This is completely a DCC dogs backside, not a central government one. Copley23
  • Score: -2

10:01am Sun 2 Mar 14

David Lacey says...

Jonn - 500,000 people DID NOT visit food banks. That is a lie. There were 500,000 visits. These visits would obviously include multiple visits by some people. The Trussell Trust – which runs most food banks – said between last April and December around 500,000 people were given three days’ worth of emergency food at its banks. However, the Trust admitted that the figures refer to requests for food, not the number of individuals making them. So we do not know if 500,000 people have visited food banks once, or 50,000 have gone ten times. Sorry to burst your balloon. If you wish to check out the facts instead of simply spouting rubbish (as usual) please visit the Trussell website.


Read more: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2564429/What-hunger-
crisis-Bishops-wrong
-welfare-says-Clegg-
Deputy-PM-reacts-ang
rily-claim-safety-ne
t-removed.html#ixzz2
unXNS300
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Jonn - 500,000 people DID NOT visit food banks. That is a lie. There were 500,000 visits. These visits would obviously include multiple visits by some people. The Trussell Trust – which runs most food banks – said between last April and December around 500,000 people were given three days’ worth of emergency food at its banks. However, the Trust admitted that the figures refer to requests for food, not the number of individuals making them. So we do not know if 500,000 people have visited food banks once, or 50,000 have gone ten times. Sorry to burst your balloon. If you wish to check out the facts instead of simply spouting rubbish (as usual) please visit the Trussell website. Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2564429/What-hunger- crisis-Bishops-wrong -welfare-says-Clegg- Deputy-PM-reacts-ang rily-claim-safety-ne t-removed.html#ixzz2 unXNS300 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook David Lacey
  • Score: -4

10:20am Sun 2 Mar 14

Copley23 says...

David Lacey wrote:
Jonn - 500,000 people DID NOT visit food banks. That is a lie. There were 500,000 visits. These visits would obviously include multiple visits by some people. The Trussell Trust – which runs most food banks – said between last April and December around 500,000 people were given three days’ worth of emergency food at its banks. However, the Trust admitted that the figures refer to requests for food, not the number of individuals making them. So we do not know if 500,000 people have visited food banks once, or 50,000 have gone ten times. Sorry to burst your balloon. If you wish to check out the facts instead of simply spouting rubbish (as usual) please visit the Trussell website.


Read more: http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2564429/What-hunger-

crisis-Bishops-wrong

-welfare-says-Clegg-

Deputy-PM-reacts-ang

rily-claim-safety-ne

t-removed.html#ixzz2

unXNS300
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
^ he's right - - it's what I was telling you all last week. But the normal suspects chose to deny it, as normal.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Jonn - 500,000 people DID NOT visit food banks. That is a lie. There were 500,000 visits. These visits would obviously include multiple visits by some people. The Trussell Trust – which runs most food banks – said between last April and December around 500,000 people were given three days’ worth of emergency food at its banks. However, the Trust admitted that the figures refer to requests for food, not the number of individuals making them. So we do not know if 500,000 people have visited food banks once, or 50,000 have gone ten times. Sorry to burst your balloon. If you wish to check out the facts instead of simply spouting rubbish (as usual) please visit the Trussell website. Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2564429/What-hunger- crisis-Bishops-wrong -welfare-says-Clegg- Deputy-PM-reacts-ang rily-claim-safety-ne t-removed.html#ixzz2 unXNS300 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/p][/quote]^ he's right - - it's what I was telling you all last week. But the normal suspects chose to deny it, as normal. Copley23
  • Score: -2

10:42am Sun 2 Mar 14

David Lacey says...

Thanks Copley. This debate is quite infuriating. As I've said repeatedly - there is NO poverty in the UK. Something of which we should be proud. The safety net is secure no matter what your circumstances are. I have seen examples of poverty in the Cape townships, slums of Cairo and ghettos of the Caribbean. Yet even here people are NOT starving, they have clothing and clean water to drink. In the Cape townships, ladies send their kids to school properly dressed in spite of terrible hardship. These people could teach some UK parents about responsibility and the value of education.
.
When Labour get elected next year Jonn and his mates will go silent, even though nothing will change.
Thanks Copley. This debate is quite infuriating. As I've said repeatedly - there is NO poverty in the UK. Something of which we should be proud. The safety net is secure no matter what your circumstances are. I have seen examples of poverty in the Cape townships, slums of Cairo and ghettos of the Caribbean. Yet even here people are NOT starving, they have clothing and clean water to drink. In the Cape townships, ladies send their kids to school properly dressed in spite of terrible hardship. These people could teach some UK parents about responsibility and the value of education. . When Labour get elected next year Jonn and his mates will go silent, even though nothing will change. David Lacey
  • Score: -5

1:18pm Sun 2 Mar 14

kmax1959 says...

"No poverty in the UK".LOL another politician speaks ha ha ha ha
"No poverty in the UK".LOL another politician speaks ha ha ha ha kmax1959
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Sun 2 Mar 14

sineater says...

How can the safety net be secure when a vunerable man dies after having his benefit c ut ,you are an outright liar David .
How can the safety net be secure when a vunerable man dies after having his benefit c ut ,you are an outright liar David . sineater
  • Score: 1

4:17pm Sun 2 Mar 14

David Lacey says...

I haven't a clue what you are on about Loopy. But we will all die one day whether we claim benefits or not. Even you!
I haven't a clue what you are on about Loopy. But we will all die one day whether we claim benefits or not. Even you! David Lacey
  • Score: -2

5:06pm Sun 2 Mar 14

sineater says...

Yes you do have a clue David , you said there is no poverty, yet a vunerable man has his benefits c ut ,he starves to death ---but of course you don't have a clue ,you're a bare-faced liar,be a man for a change and admit that this government is making unfair ciuts that is leading to this sort of tradgedy happening,we all die ,yes the trouble is this government is speeding up the process for some people . It gives a c lue to your nature when you say we die wether we claim benefits or not ,just like this government you despise anyone forced to rely on benefits, even sick or disabled like the man I was referring to .
Yes you do have a clue David , you said there is no poverty, yet a vunerable man has his benefits c ut ,he starves to death ---but of course you don't have a clue ,you're a bare-faced liar,be a man for a change and admit that this government is making unfair ciuts that is leading to this sort of tradgedy happening,we all die ,yes the trouble is this government is speeding up the process for some people . It gives a c lue to your nature when you say we die wether we claim benefits or not ,just like this government you despise anyone forced to rely on benefits, even sick or disabled like the man I was referring to . sineater
  • Score: 3

7:27pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Jonn says...

David Lacey wrote:
Jonn - 500,000 people DID NOT visit food banks. That is a lie. There were 500,000 visits. These visits would obviously include multiple visits by some people. The Trussell Trust – which runs most food banks – said between last April and December around 500,000 people were given three days’ worth of emergency food at its banks. However, the Trust admitted that the figures refer to requests for food, not the number of individuals making them. So we do not know if 500,000 people have visited food banks once, or 50,000 have gone ten times. Sorry to burst your balloon. If you wish to check out the facts instead of simply spouting rubbish (as usual) please visit the Trussell website.


Read more: http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2564429/What-hunger-

crisis-Bishops-wrong

-welfare-says-Clegg-

Deputy-PM-reacts-ang

rily-claim-safety-ne

t-removed.html#ixzz2

unXNS300
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The Trussell Trust is not the only provider of food banks, there are hundreds more throughout the country. Research by Oxfam and Church Poverty Action estimates that the support offered by other organisations brings the total number of visitors closer to 500,000 in 2013.
Thanks for advsing me to visit the Trussell Trust website but I have already done so in the past.
As for your link to the Daily Mail, well, we all know they are the mouthpiece for DWP propaganda. I've already reported them to the PCC for printing DWP lies and won, leading to a correction being published.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Jonn - 500,000 people DID NOT visit food banks. That is a lie. There were 500,000 visits. These visits would obviously include multiple visits by some people. The Trussell Trust – which runs most food banks – said between last April and December around 500,000 people were given three days’ worth of emergency food at its banks. However, the Trust admitted that the figures refer to requests for food, not the number of individuals making them. So we do not know if 500,000 people have visited food banks once, or 50,000 have gone ten times. Sorry to burst your balloon. If you wish to check out the facts instead of simply spouting rubbish (as usual) please visit the Trussell website. Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2564429/What-hunger- crisis-Bishops-wrong -welfare-says-Clegg- Deputy-PM-reacts-ang rily-claim-safety-ne t-removed.html#ixzz2 unXNS300 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/p][/quote]The Trussell Trust is not the only provider of food banks, there are hundreds more throughout the country. Research by Oxfam and Church Poverty Action estimates that the support offered by other organisations brings the total number of visitors closer to 500,000 in 2013. Thanks for advsing me to visit the Trussell Trust website but I have already done so in the past. As for your link to the Daily Mail, well, we all know they are the mouthpiece for DWP propaganda. I've already reported them to the PCC for printing DWP lies and won, leading to a correction being published. Jonn
  • Score: 2

7:39pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Jonn says...

Copley23 wrote:
Mr Lacey is the one person on here who is telling the truth.

Councils were asked to provide details(to central government) when they changed from local districts to county, of how they were going to map this via their IT system. DCC quoted well under the odds in order to save themselves some money. What they did not do was allow for the pre-96 protected tenant details to be carried across.

They had the same problem with the benefits system generally and as a landlord, know all too well how long it takes them to undertake a simple income change on their benefit mainframe.

We all at the time said the merger was going to be a complete shambles......and it is. They simply aren't bright or caring enough to see how this could possible affect them. Arrogant.

This is completely a DCC dogs backside, not a central government one.
It's not just DCC though is it, it's nationwide, Tory, Labour and Lib Dem councils all included.
Government didn't amend the housing act, their fault. If it wasn't their fault, why are they now amending it to close the loop hole?
[quote][p][bold]Copley23[/bold] wrote: Mr Lacey is the one person on here who is telling the truth. Councils were asked to provide details(to central government) when they changed from local districts to county, of how they were going to map this via their IT system. DCC quoted well under the odds in order to save themselves some money. What they did not do was allow for the pre-96 protected tenant details to be carried across. They had the same problem with the benefits system generally and as a landlord, know all too well how long it takes them to undertake a simple income change on their benefit mainframe. We all at the time said the merger was going to be a complete shambles......and it is. They simply aren't bright or caring enough to see how this could possible affect them. Arrogant. This is completely a DCC dogs backside, not a central government one.[/p][/quote]It's not just DCC though is it, it's nationwide, Tory, Labour and Lib Dem councils all included. Government didn't amend the housing act, their fault. If it wasn't their fault, why are they now amending it to close the loop hole? Jonn
  • Score: 3

8:01pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Jonn says...

David Lacey wrote:
I haven't a clue what you are on about Loopy. But we will all die one day whether we claim benefits or not. Even you!
I think your comment sums up perfectly all I despise about this Government.
A genuinely sick man dieing without dignity is no way for anyone to go.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: I haven't a clue what you are on about Loopy. But we will all die one day whether we claim benefits or not. Even you![/p][/quote]I think your comment sums up perfectly all I despise about this Government. A genuinely sick man dieing without dignity is no way for anyone to go. Jonn
  • Score: 3

4:38pm Fri 7 Mar 14

cushybutterfield says...

This 'British cultural Nanny Free Benefit State' will be issuing 'Free Mattresses' 'Free Slippers' and Free 'Toilet Rolls' next for many of the' long term non-working', 'sit on your butt', free benefit receiving' worksh'y. All paid for by the poor 'oppressed, abused, downtrodden' 'WORKING 'Mug' British Taxpayer.
This 'British cultural Nanny Free Benefit State' will be issuing 'Free Mattresses' 'Free Slippers' and Free 'Toilet Rolls' next for many of the' long term non-working', 'sit on your butt', free benefit receiving' worksh'y. All paid for by the poor 'oppressed, abused, downtrodden' 'WORKING 'Mug' British Taxpayer. cushybutterfield
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Copley23 says...

Jonn wrote:
Copley23 wrote:
Mr Lacey is the one person on here who is telling the truth.

Councils were asked to provide details(to central government) when they changed from local districts to county, of how they were going to map this via their IT system. DCC quoted well under the odds in order to save themselves some money. What they did not do was allow for the pre-96 protected tenant details to be carried across.

They had the same problem with the benefits system generally and as a landlord, know all too well how long it takes them to undertake a simple income change on their benefit mainframe.

We all at the time said the merger was going to be a complete shambles......and it is. They simply aren't bright or caring enough to see how this could possible affect them. Arrogant.

This is completely a DCC dogs backside, not a central government one.
It's not just DCC though is it, it's nationwide, Tory, Labour and Lib Dem councils all included.
Government didn't amend the housing act, their fault. If it wasn't their fault, why are they now amending it to close the loop hole?
"Government didn't amend the housing act, their fault. If it wasn't their fault, why are they now amending it to close the loop hole?"

Please explain what you are gibbering on about?
[quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Copley23[/bold] wrote: Mr Lacey is the one person on here who is telling the truth. Councils were asked to provide details(to central government) when they changed from local districts to county, of how they were going to map this via their IT system. DCC quoted well under the odds in order to save themselves some money. What they did not do was allow for the pre-96 protected tenant details to be carried across. They had the same problem with the benefits system generally and as a landlord, know all too well how long it takes them to undertake a simple income change on their benefit mainframe. We all at the time said the merger was going to be a complete shambles......and it is. They simply aren't bright or caring enough to see how this could possible affect them. Arrogant. This is completely a DCC dogs backside, not a central government one.[/p][/quote]It's not just DCC though is it, it's nationwide, Tory, Labour and Lib Dem councils all included. Government didn't amend the housing act, their fault. If it wasn't their fault, why are they now amending it to close the loop hole?[/p][/quote]"Government didn't amend the housing act, their fault. If it wasn't their fault, why are they now amending it to close the loop hole?" Please explain what you are gibbering on about? Copley23
  • Score: 0

6:08pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Jonn says...

Copley23 wrote:
Jonn wrote:
Copley23 wrote:
Mr Lacey is the one person on here who is telling the truth.

Councils were asked to provide details(to central government) when they changed from local districts to county, of how they were going to map this via their IT system. DCC quoted well under the odds in order to save themselves some money. What they did not do was allow for the pre-96 protected tenant details to be carried across.

They had the same problem with the benefits system generally and as a landlord, know all too well how long it takes them to undertake a simple income change on their benefit mainframe.

We all at the time said the merger was going to be a complete shambles......and it is. They simply aren't bright or caring enough to see how this could possible affect them. Arrogant.

This is completely a DCC dogs backside, not a central government one.
It's not just DCC though is it, it's nationwide, Tory, Labour and Lib Dem councils all included.
Government didn't amend the housing act, their fault. If it wasn't their fault, why are they now amending it to close the loop hole?
"Government didn't amend the housing act, their fault. If it wasn't their fault, why are they now amending it to close the loop hole?"

Please explain what you are gibbering on about?
Just clearing up after your misunderstanding of the facts.
[quote][p][bold]Copley23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Copley23[/bold] wrote: Mr Lacey is the one person on here who is telling the truth. Councils were asked to provide details(to central government) when they changed from local districts to county, of how they were going to map this via their IT system. DCC quoted well under the odds in order to save themselves some money. What they did not do was allow for the pre-96 protected tenant details to be carried across. They had the same problem with the benefits system generally and as a landlord, know all too well how long it takes them to undertake a simple income change on their benefit mainframe. We all at the time said the merger was going to be a complete shambles......and it is. They simply aren't bright or caring enough to see how this could possible affect them. Arrogant. This is completely a DCC dogs backside, not a central government one.[/p][/quote]It's not just DCC though is it, it's nationwide, Tory, Labour and Lib Dem councils all included. Government didn't amend the housing act, their fault. If it wasn't their fault, why are they now amending it to close the loop hole?[/p][/quote]"Government didn't amend the housing act, their fault. If it wasn't their fault, why are they now amending it to close the loop hole?" Please explain what you are gibbering on about?[/p][/quote]Just clearing up after your misunderstanding of the facts. Jonn
  • Score: 0

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