Basic HTML Version
NO GAME
It was good to see that the problem of
online gaming highlighted in
DDN
(‘Game On’, February, page 8), with a
comparison drawn between the
responsible/uncontrolled use of
alcohol. The article indicated that the
compulsive player can become isolated
from family and that the playing of such
computer games, especially online,
causes friction not only within the
game-player’s family but can affect
other areas such as education.
However there was one element
that was overlooked in the article – that
games can also allow the player to
withdraw from family, friends and their
problems; again akin to the use of
alcohol and other substances. At times
the gaming allows an adoption of an
unreal and misperceived persona.
As a young persons’ substance
misuse treatment nurse, based within a
child and adolescent mental health
service, I have worked with young
people who have poor self-esteem/self-
worth issues, combined with low mood
and a lack of self-identity. Not only have
these young people become enmeshed
in a lifestyle of late-night game-playing
that subsequently disrupts education,
family and peer socialisation, they
became even more isolated and
withdrawn, living out a fantasy life
through the ‘on-screen’ persona.
When working with these young
people they talk of the large amount of
friends they have; however it transpires
that their friends are other online
players from various points across the
world, having long ago disengaged from
their actual peers.
It has proved very difficult working
with these young people in a multi-
agency systemic manner, as the
adverse issues of gaming are not
recognised as at least a contributory
Letters |
Comment
March 2013 |
drinkanddrugsnews
| 25
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
LETTERS
We welcome your letters...
Please email them to the editor, claire@cjwellings.com or post them
to the address on page 3. Letters may be edited for space or clarity
– please limit submissions to 350 words.
‘I have worked
with young
people who have
poor self-
esteem/self-worth issues,
combined with lowmood and a lack
of self-identity. Not only have these
young people become enmeshed in a
lifestyle of late-night game-playing...
They became even more isolated and
withdrawn, living out a fantasy life
through the ‘on-screen’ persona.
adverse factor, due to the lack of
evidence base.
Russell S Tullett, specialist nurse,
young persons’ substance use and
team lead, CAMHs, Guernsey
BEDROOM BENEFITS
I am writing to point out an error in the
advice given by Kirstie Douse in your
February issue (
DDN
, February, page
10). The writer of the letter states that
she has been advised by her council
that her housing benefit will be reduced
from April 2013 and she would have to
share a room with her son. This is
incorrect and the rules are laid out
clearly at:
http://bit.ly/VLkixm
The author of the letter should be
reassured that she is not under
accommodated for benefit purposes.
However, she should ring her local
authority to check they hold the correct
household information. It’s more than
likely the council sent out a blanket
letter to all residents to warn of any
possible changes.
M Beach, by email
Re your piece in the last
DDN
about the
bedroom tax: the answer given was
incorrect. The issue was around a
mother with a child in a two-bed flat
and the reply said she would be hit by
the tax as she is only entitled to a one-
bed flat. She is in fact entitled to her
two-bed flat without any reductions in
benefit, as her child by law must have a
room of his own.
Rose Latham, Lancashire
RELEASE SOLICITOR
KIRSTIE DOUSE REPLIES:
The information provided is not factually
incorrect but comes down to what is
defined as a bedroom for the purposes of
the Housing Benefit (Amendment) 2012
(‘the bedroom tax’). This is a complex
issue, not least, because the regulations
do not provide a definition; rather it is left
to local authorities to determine the
number of bedrooms in a dwelling for the
purposes of Regulation b13 and whether
the property is under occupied (subject to
the conditions as laid out in your letter).
The DWP circular (HB/CTB A4/2012)
relating to the new ‘bedroom tax’ states
‘We will not be defining what we mean by
a bedroom in legislation…’ Unlike private
renting tenants where the Local Housing
Allowance scheme excludes living rooms
in the bedroom calculations, social
tenants may in fact find themselves in the
situation described in my previous
column, as living rooms are not explicitly
excluded in the new regulations.
For social tenants there is little
existing guidance that provides a clear
definition on what and what is not a
bedroom. However, the Rent Officer
Handbook (2009) used by local
authorities, states:
‘Under the Housing Benefit Scheme,
rent officers treat bedrooms and rooms
suitable for living interchangeably,
Local Reference Rents are based on
total number of habitable rooms
(bedrooms and living rooms…)’
This could be why we are starting to see
some local authorities determining that a
living room should count as a bedroom.
In our opinion this is wrong and should
be challenged. You are correct to say that
the first step should be to challenge the
local authorities ‘under-occupancy’
determination in such circumstances, and
even if they do not review their decision
in favour of the tenant, legal advice
should sought as to whether their
decision can be judicially reviewed.
I can assure you this is the advice
Release has been providing to those
affected by the new regulations and this
should have been explicit in my column.
However the advice provided on how to
manage shortfall in housing benefit is
correct and will hopefully assist those
impacted by the ‘bedroom tax’.
Unfortunately, as with any new
legislation, until the regulations are
tested in the courts concrete definitions
are difficult to provide and, in the
meantime, we will have a postcode
lottery in what local authorities
determine is a ‘bedroom’.