'We were told this was a home for life when we moved in'
A DISABLED man whose house has been fitted with £20,000 of specialist adaptations fears he will be forced out by the Government's new bedroom tax.
Michael Blair, who is contemplating a life-threatening surgery on his spine for a genetic condition called neurofibromatosis type 1, says the threat of the tax is adding to his worries.
He says his surgeon at the Queen's Medical Centre has warned that one in five operations go wrong and he could die or end up paralysed from the neck or waist down.
The condition causes benign tumours to grow all over the body which can cause serious damage by compressing nerves.
Landlords let us advertise your property and find you vetted tenants quickly. Our let only service is £195.
We offer full management services as well as rent guarantee and rent advance. Call us
Terms: No hidden charges, you will be informed of all costs in advance. The letting agency you can trust.
Contact: 0115 8969582
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
The 43-year-old lives in a three-bedroomed bungalow which has undergone extensive alterations such as a wet room, special toilet, ramps and rails.
But now he fears for the future and is worried sick that his family may be forced out by the new tax.
"We were told this was our bungalow for life when we moved in 13 years ago because my condition is never going to get better.
"There is no cure and it gets worse as you get older," says Mr Blair, who has previously had 200 tumours removed from his body.
"The tumours are pressing against my spine and my legs and my right arm is weak. They are slowly paralysing me. Sooner or later I am going to be a paraplegic whatever happens. Even if I have the operation the tumours can grow back," he said.
Mr Blair lives at the large bungalow in Calver Close, Wollaton Park, with his wife Gail, his son, 15, and daughter, 17, who have both inherited the condition.
Because the children are still living at home, the Blairs won't have to pay the tax for empty bedrooms straight away but they fear, when their children leave home in a few years time, they won't be able to afford the extra £80 per month.
"We're going to have to pay council tax which we can just about afford but not £80. I am worried sick and feel really low," says Mr Blair, who has recently been put on anti-depressants and is having counselling.
Mr Blair's bungalow belongs to social housing provider Nottingham City Homes.
A spokeswoman told the Post: "We're doing all we can to help our tenants through all the changes to benefits.
"All those we know are going to be affected by the new rules on housing benefit are all being contacted personally by us. We're providing them with lots of information about what their choices are."
Nottingham City Council is campaigning against the tax because of the cost implications of moving disabled tenants out of specially adapted properties into smaller homes that need alternations.
The local authority has launched an online petition calling on the Government to re-think the bedroom tax which will be imposed on tenants with spare bedrooms in April in a bid to encourage residents to downsize and cut housing waiting lists.
Discretionary housing benefit will be available in some cases to help tenants afford the new tax – but possibly only for one year.
Councillor Dave Liversidge, portfolio holder for housing, adult services and the community, said: "It is ridiculous Mr Blair has been put in this situation.
"When we have provided homes for people with particular adaptations and then being told to move causes upheaval for them and creates additional problems for Nottingham City Homes who will have to adapt a smaller property.
"I would hope Nottingham City Homes will try to alleviate the situation as best they can by trying to keep him in his own home but it depends on whether we can continue with discretionary housing benefit.
"I think the bedroom tax is going to create so much trouble over the next the next year there will be some sort of alleviation or repeal."
On the web: Join the debate online at www.thisisnottingham.co.uk
9 Comments
by BLawrenson
Sunday, March 17 2013, 11:11PM
“Gail, I made my first comment because I thought that you had enough worries about your husbands health without worrying about something that may not happen for some years if ever. My second comment was directed only at Grizzley. I agree with FW in that I consider the scheme to be ill thought out and too simplistic. Perhaps, in reply to a question you pose, OAPs living on their own in three bedroom social housing should be found somewhere more appropriate to their needs and a family re housed, that is what social housing surely means.”
by FormerlyW
Sunday, March 17 2013, 6:33PM
“"I look after my husband, like I should. It would cost the government more money if he had to go into care, or if another property had to be adapted. We are supposed to be teaching our children how to be a caring citizen, and to help each other when in need."
I absolutely agree that the policy is too simplistic in its approach when dealing with such issues as disability, and should be refined to avoid costing more money than it saves and making life very difficult for, for example, those couples who have to sleep apart some of the time due to flare ups of debilitating disability
However, if you are really keen to teach your children that they should help people who are in need, perhaps you could suggest how to deal with the current cases of need where some families are hopelessly over-crowded in their current accommodation, while others, subsidized by the state, are occupying houses that are significantly larger than is required for their present and future needs.”
by FormerlyW
Sunday, March 17 2013, 6:33PM
“"I look after my husband, like I should. It would cost the government more money if he had to go into care, or if another property had to be adapted. We are supposed to be teaching our children how to be a caring citizen, and to help each other when in need."
I absolutely agree that the policy is too simplistic in its approach when dealing with such issues as disability, and should be refined to avoid costing more money than it saves and making life very difficult for, for example, those couples who have to sleep apart some of the time due to flare ups of debilitating disability
However, if you are really keen to teach your children that they should help people who are in need, perhaps you could suggest how to deal with the current cases of need where some families are hopelessly over-crowded in their current accommodation, while others, subsidized by the state, are occupying houses that are significantly larger than is required for their present and future needs.”
by seaview123
Sunday, March 17 2013, 4:54PM
“Regarding BLawrenson's comments. Firstly my husband did not ask to be diagnosed with spinal tumours which are life threatening.i.e, paralysed from the neck or waist down or even death. The neuro surgeon told him this kind of operation is a very high risk op, 1 in 5 go wrong. Nobody should have to go through this torment, regardless of their illness'. Even our son was diagnosed with a brain tumour and bittle bones. People are alway's mentioning about down sizing. Do they realise how much disabled equipment they need, especially if they are paralysed. Also in alot of cases, if you down size it does not mean your rent is any cheaper, it could be just as costly. My hubby has had various jobs in the past, he was a hard grafter and alway's worked long hours. Just like alot of people do, to earn a living. When my hubby's results came back from his m.r.i scan, we were terrified. Didn't even know how to tell the kids. Should everybody including oap's be forced to down size? No, of course not. I look after my husband, like I should. It would cost the government more money if he had to go into care, or if another property had to be adapted. We are supposed to be teaching our children how to be a caring citizen, and to help each other when in need. Thank you to those who commented on my hubby's story and who have the time to understand. We wish you all the best, take care.
Mrs. Blair & family”
by BLawrenson
Saturday, March 16 2013, 9:48AM
“Grizzley, just remind me, how many properties has Tony Blair got ? Just for balance that is.Is there a possibility of you arranging an official swop with a young family that need more space who are presently living in a one bedroom flat ?”
by FormerlyW
Friday, March 15 2013, 5:23PM
“I am not sure I understand what the issue is here. Here is someone who has been fairly well looked after by the state, in terms of the provision of social housing, the extensive modification that his housing required because of his disability, and various benefits to which he is entitled (and quite right too). He is under no imminent threat of losing any benefit because he has no unused bedrooms. If and when his children do leave home, he will have no need for accommodation with so many bedrooms, while someone else may, and presumably if he has to move the state will once again pay to install any modifications he may need to accommodate his disability in his new home. If the housing provider calculates that it would be more cost-effective to keep him in his current housing than put another £20,000 of modifications in somewhere else, presumably they can do so by continuing to provide him with a discretionary grant to cover his financial shortfall.”
by grizzley1
Friday, March 15 2013, 2:21PM
“I disagree with David Cameron and his bunch of crooks. These millionaire ministers will never have to live in social housing, as they have large homes away from work, have tax payer funded travel, food and drink. The bedroom tax will be David Cameron's legacy, just like margaret thatchers poll tax. Cameron's latest blast is, private sector do not get this discount, and so we social sector tenants do not need to have this. What does the condems expect us to do, i can not afford the private sector rents as they are extortianate. I will lose £44 month rent, £7 council tax here in Nottingham. There are not enough 1 bed flats for everyone. In Nottingham city homes is demolishing blocks of flats to make way for less houses, where are these people, who have to move going top live. After paying my bills i will be left with £42 a month to live on, that is for now, bills will rise year on year, I would be better off in jail, where i would not have to worry about bills, I would get 3 meals a day a bed and people to speak to, all at taxpayers expence. I want a job but it is not easy, I am 51 and most jobs nowadays want people between ages of 16-24, or skilled workers. If everyone refuses to pay this extra money what would John Collins do or even david cameron.”
by BLawrenson
Friday, March 15 2013, 11:59AM
“This does seem to be a created story. Most sons stay at home until 24 or 25 at least unless they go to Uni or join the Forces. There could be a change of government in a couple of years and the Lib-Labs would change everything, if not there could be a change in the rules to allow for specially adapted housing. . Let's concentrate on what is happening now.”
by CALTHROSS
Friday, March 15 2013, 10:35AM
“Where is Michael Blair's Human Rights and others like him.
This bedroom tax is disgraceful,affecting those not responsible for the housing crisis.
It has set people against each other yet those responsible for the housing crisis are walking away from their duties.
Punishing the wrong people as per usual.
MP's have two or more homes why can't they give them up for social housing?
Should ban people from gobbling up family homes who then go on to convert them into student accommodation.
The fault lies elsewhere,not the disabled etc.”