This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
election coming so starting to look at what parties are saying and complaining about. Can someone explain why the "bedroom tax" is so terrible according to Labour? As explained here it seems entirely reasonable, both in terms of costs to taxpayers and best use of social housing that is in short supply
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/housing_benefit_and_local_housing_...
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/housing_benefit_and_local_housing_...
1
In reply to MG:
What if you live in a 2 bed flat, on your own but the council / housing association don't have any 1 bed flats you could move to?
What if you live in a 2 bed flat, on your own but the council / housing association don't have any 1 bed flats you could move to?
2
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Presumably rent a room. According to that link you can do that, within limits.
Presumably rent a room. According to that link you can do that, within limits.
In reply to MG:
I think an additional charge for people who want to pay extra for spare rooms sounds fair to me, however it would need to be implemented sensibly to take into account situations such as the above. It seems improbable that it doesn't, but it's often cited so I wouldn't be surprised.
I think an additional charge for people who want to pay extra for spare rooms sounds fair to me, however it would need to be implemented sensibly to take into account situations such as the above. It seems improbable that it doesn't, but it's often cited so I wouldn't be surprised.
In reply to MG:
The Mirror have thoughtfully written a list so you can easily see why the tax is unfair http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-vote-25-reasons-2781904
The Mirror have thoughtfully written a list so you can easily see why the tax is unfair http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-vote-25-reasons-2781904
1
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Err right. Can't live with my forebears ashes! The horror! Some reasonable points about carers
Err right. Can't live with my forebears ashes! The horror! Some reasonable points about carers
In reply to Andy Hardy:
That is the issue.
I have no issue with it provided it is modified such that once you have registered a request to be moved to a smaller property, provided you do take that property once offered to you[1], it would cease to be imposed from the point that request was made.
Most of the rest of the objections are things requiring tweaks to the implementation not making the concept an issue. Except the "buried ashes" one which should never have been permitted as it wasn't her property to bury them in.
[1] If you do not, and there is no good reason why not, it would be re-imposed and you would pay it retrospectively as well.
Neil
That is the issue.
I have no issue with it provided it is modified such that once you have registered a request to be moved to a smaller property, provided you do take that property once offered to you[1], it would cease to be imposed from the point that request was made.
Most of the rest of the objections are things requiring tweaks to the implementation not making the concept an issue. Except the "buried ashes" one which should never have been permitted as it wasn't her property to bury them in.
[1] If you do not, and there is no good reason why not, it would be re-imposed and you would pay it retrospectively as well.
Neil
Post edited at 14:58
4
1
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
It also isn't a tax, it is a benefit reduction, and should be called what it is. Calling it a tax is factually incorrect and unnecessarily emotive.
Neil
It also isn't a tax, it is a benefit reduction, and should be called what it is. Calling it a tax is factually incorrect and unnecessarily emotive.
Neil
3
1
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
I'm not sure those are 25 distinct reasons, but 23 was a good one: Nick Clegg is involved.
Down with the bedroom tax!
I'm not sure those are 25 distinct reasons, but 23 was a good one: Nick Clegg is involved.
Down with the bedroom tax!
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
That's right, and the word you are looking for is coercion
> and should be called what it is
That's right, and the word you are looking for is coercion
1
In reply to MG:
And some reasonable points about there not being enough houses, about people being criminalised and all sorts of things. And you pick up on the ashes. Nice.
And some reasonable points about there not being enough houses, about people being criminalised and all sorts of things. And you pick up on the ashes. Nice.
In reply to MG:
A reasonable policy would have been to move people where possible into the appropriate sized accommodation to make best use of stock. Not very nice being told you have to move to house, but hey ho, your house is too big and someone else needs the room. Fair enough I think.
However, the policy just makes anyone who happens to be living somewhere with a spare room too poor to be able to continue living there. So they should move to somewhere smaller, yeah? What if there's nowhere available (govt answer: "F*CK YOU!"). What if the only available housing is now miles away from where you work and, say, a family member that you need to look after, so you'll be just as poor if you do move, so there's no incentive (govt answer: "F*CK YOU!).
The aims of the policy are ok, but the method - just taking money away from people for a choice they didn't knowingly make and letting them deal with the consequences - is totally unfair.
Or perhaps you can explain how it's actually fine?
A reasonable policy would have been to move people where possible into the appropriate sized accommodation to make best use of stock. Not very nice being told you have to move to house, but hey ho, your house is too big and someone else needs the room. Fair enough I think.
However, the policy just makes anyone who happens to be living somewhere with a spare room too poor to be able to continue living there. So they should move to somewhere smaller, yeah? What if there's nowhere available (govt answer: "F*CK YOU!"). What if the only available housing is now miles away from where you work and, say, a family member that you need to look after, so you'll be just as poor if you do move, so there's no incentive (govt answer: "F*CK YOU!).
The aims of the policy are ok, but the method - just taking money away from people for a choice they didn't knowingly make and letting them deal with the consequences - is totally unfair.
Or perhaps you can explain how it's actually fine?
2
In reply to MG:
I take it 'sense of community' and 'home' are meaningless then? The bedroom tax is simply a tax on the poorest /weakest.
I take it 'sense of community' and 'home' are meaningless then? The bedroom tax is simply a tax on the poorest /weakest.
In reply to MG:
Personally I think the idea behind the spare room subsidy is fine - but that the implementation has been botched (or, at least, forced through without much care for the vulnerable).
I don't think the taxpayer should be subsidising spare rooms for those who want, but don't really need, them. I'd like a spare room too - anyone fancy chipping in so I can get a bigger house?
I think it's fair enough to reduce benefits if people choose to have a spare room. However, this shouldn't be forced on people without first offering them suitable smaller accommodation, and more effort should have been made to allow for the needs of people who need the space for equipment due to disability, or the like.
The phrase "bedroom tax" grates a little, as it isn't a tax - but it must feel a lot like a tax for people it's being forced on, when they have no alternative.
Am I a horrible Tory now?
Personally I think the idea behind the spare room subsidy is fine - but that the implementation has been botched (or, at least, forced through without much care for the vulnerable).
I don't think the taxpayer should be subsidising spare rooms for those who want, but don't really need, them. I'd like a spare room too - anyone fancy chipping in so I can get a bigger house?
I think it's fair enough to reduce benefits if people choose to have a spare room. However, this shouldn't be forced on people without first offering them suitable smaller accommodation, and more effort should have been made to allow for the needs of people who need the space for equipment due to disability, or the like.
The phrase "bedroom tax" grates a little, as it isn't a tax - but it must feel a lot like a tax for people it's being forced on, when they have no alternative.
Am I a horrible Tory now?
4
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Well it depends a bit on options. If rooms can be rented, I really don't see the issue. I would certainly do that if I was short of cash, rather than expecting other tax payers to pay my mortgage. If people are being prevented from doing this and not being offered alternatives, I can see a problem. The principle seems sound though, to me.
> Or perhaps you can explain how it's actually fine?
Well it depends a bit on options. If rooms can be rented, I really don't see the issue. I would certainly do that if I was short of cash, rather than expecting other tax payers to pay my mortgage. If people are being prevented from doing this and not being offered alternatives, I can see a problem. The principle seems sound though, to me.
In reply to PeterM:
The biggest issue is that those stuck in the private sector are far worse off than council tenants. They have no security of tenure beyond the 6 months Assured Shorthold Tenancy, will have to pay rent which is far higher than the rent on an equivalent council house and receive housing benefit based on the number of bedrooms deemed required rather than the number they have. The benefit can't be higher than a vaguely localised average, so convenient areas are generally out of reach anyway.
Getting into the Council system is NOT easy, and once you're in you can stay, even if you are no longer entitled to Housing benefit. Where I used to live most of the council properties advertised as available for applications were restricted to over 55s!
From experience working in the sector the worst off are not those on JSA but those whose income puts them over the threshold by a minimal amount- free school meals, targeted funding, free prescriptions etc.
The biggest issue is that those stuck in the private sector are far worse off than council tenants. They have no security of tenure beyond the 6 months Assured Shorthold Tenancy, will have to pay rent which is far higher than the rent on an equivalent council house and receive housing benefit based on the number of bedrooms deemed required rather than the number they have. The benefit can't be higher than a vaguely localised average, so convenient areas are generally out of reach anyway.
Getting into the Council system is NOT easy, and once you're in you can stay, even if you are no longer entitled to Housing benefit. Where I used to live most of the council properties advertised as available for applications were restricted to over 55s!
From experience working in the sector the worst off are not those on JSA but those whose income puts them over the threshold by a minimal amount- free school meals, targeted funding, free prescriptions etc.
1
In reply to skog:
What's wrong with calling it a tax? It's a reduction in income, albeit not earnt income.
How does is handle people renting 3 bedroom houses where the 3rd bedroom is too small to be used? With any changes to benefits you will always include the poorest/most vulnerable at one end and some chancers/fraudsters at the other end. Instead of being pleased it hits a few fraudsters, you should worry how the vulnerable are protected.
What is the problem that this is trying to solve? A benefits bill that is too large as too much housing is being rented or a shortage of larger homes for those in need.
What's wrong with calling it a tax? It's a reduction in income, albeit not earnt income.
How does is handle people renting 3 bedroom houses where the 3rd bedroom is too small to be used? With any changes to benefits you will always include the poorest/most vulnerable at one end and some chancers/fraudsters at the other end. Instead of being pleased it hits a few fraudsters, you should worry how the vulnerable are protected.
What is the problem that this is trying to solve? A benefits bill that is too large as too much housing is being rented or a shortage of larger homes for those in need.
In reply to Philip:
An insufficiently Dickensian Britain. Tories like wearing toppers and lording it over people, but you don't get *proper* paupers these days. That's why they're also working to abolish the NHS and bring back rickets. God bless us every one.
> What is the problem that this is trying to solve?
An insufficiently Dickensian Britain. Tories like wearing toppers and lording it over people, but you don't get *proper* paupers these days. That's why they're also working to abolish the NHS and bring back rickets. God bless us every one.
5
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
What total and utter BS!
> The Mirror have thoughtfully written a list so you can easily see why the tax is unfair http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-vote-25-reasons-2781904
What total and utter BS!
1
In reply to MG:
Indeed it does depend on options. If the tenant were given the option of either moving to a smaller property or taking in a lodger then it's justifiable IMO.
Let's be honest, you have absolutely no conception of what you would do in that situation. The way you frame the situation is horribly twisted. These people aren't "short of cash and expecting other taxpayers to pay their mortgage". The govt is taking away the means they had to pay their rent. The decision to provide the housing benefit was made by the state, and now the state is transferring responsibility for the expense to the tenant, who is then coerced into sorting it out because it's too much hassle for the state (or indeed it isn't really possible because the accommodation doesn't exist).
The principle should be that if the state isn't happy with the value for money it's getting for housing, then it needs to be managed so that better value is achieved. That'll involve moving people into smaller properties over time. The principle here is that the state isn't happy with the value for money, so it takes the money back direct from the tenants and lets them sort it out or go to a food bank. It stinks.
> Well it depends a bit on options. If rooms can be rented, I really don't see the issue.
Indeed it does depend on options. If the tenant were given the option of either moving to a smaller property or taking in a lodger then it's justifiable IMO.
> I would certainly do that if I was short of cash, rather than expecting other tax payers to pay my mortgage.
Let's be honest, you have absolutely no conception of what you would do in that situation. The way you frame the situation is horribly twisted. These people aren't "short of cash and expecting other taxpayers to pay their mortgage". The govt is taking away the means they had to pay their rent. The decision to provide the housing benefit was made by the state, and now the state is transferring responsibility for the expense to the tenant, who is then coerced into sorting it out because it's too much hassle for the state (or indeed it isn't really possible because the accommodation doesn't exist).
> If people are being prevented from doing this and not being offered alternatives, I can see a problem. The principle seems sound though, to me.
The principle should be that if the state isn't happy with the value for money it's getting for housing, then it needs to be managed so that better value is achieved. That'll involve moving people into smaller properties over time. The principle here is that the state isn't happy with the value for money, so it takes the money back direct from the tenants and lets them sort it out or go to a food bank. It stinks.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Err,no, that is exactly what I would do and indeed have done in the past.
These people aren't "short of cash and expecting other taxpayers to pay their mortgage"
Well, their rent, which is essentially the same thing
I can see the problems with the implementation but still not the principle of not paying for spare rooms, particularly when there is a demand for them.
> Indeed it does depend on options. If the tenant were given the option of either moving to a smaller property or taking in a lodger then it's justifiable IMO.
> Let's be honest, you have absolutely no conception of what you would do in that situation. The way you frame the situation is horribly twisted.
Err,no, that is exactly what I would do and indeed have done in the past.
These people aren't "short of cash and expecting other taxpayers to pay their mortgage"
Well, their rent, which is essentially the same thing
> The principle should be that if the state isn't happy with the value for money it's getting for housing, then it needs to be managed so that better value is achieved. That'll involve moving people into smaller properties over time. The principle here is that the state isn't happy with the value for money, so it takes the money back direct from the tenants and lets them sort it out or go to a food bank. It stinks.
I can see the problems with the implementation but still not the principle of not paying for spare rooms, particularly when there is a demand for them.
Post edited at 16:19
In reply to Jon Stewart:
By definition your too poor to be living where you are to be in the council accommodation in the first place. Why should council tenants be insulated from the economic realities? Anyone else that couldn't afford to live where they do would be forced to move out.
> However, the policy just makes anyone who happens to be living somewhere with a spare room too poor to be able to continue living there. So they should move to somewhere smaller, yeah? What if there's nowhere available (govt answer: "F*CK YOU!"). What if the only available housing is now miles away from where you work and, say, a family member that you need to look after, so you'll be just as poor if you do move, so there's no incentive (govt answer: "F*CK YOU!).
By definition your too poor to be living where you are to be in the council accommodation in the first place. Why should council tenants be insulated from the economic realities? Anyone else that couldn't afford to live where they do would be forced to move out.
In reply to Philip:
Not sure it has anything to do with fraudsters, how do you mean? And I -do- worry about how the vulnerable can be helped; getting more into appropriate housing is one way.
I'd like the shortage of space in social housing addressed first; I suspect the main motivation was the benefits bill - along with playing to perceptions of unfairness (which are partly true).
> Instead of being pleased it hits a few fraudsters, you should worry how the vulnerable are protected.
Not sure it has anything to do with fraudsters, how do you mean? And I -do- worry about how the vulnerable can be helped; getting more into appropriate housing is one way.
> What is the problem that this is trying to solve? A benefits bill that is too large as too much housing is being rented or a shortage of larger homes for those in need?
I'd like the shortage of space in social housing addressed first; I suspect the main motivation was the benefits bill - along with playing to perceptions of unfairness (which are partly true).
In reply to deepsoup:
>but you don't get *proper* paupers these days.
Too fu*king right you don't.... the benefit's system well and truly sees to that! Those b'stard Tories have limited the poor buggers to scrapping by on £500 a week. 20p for a cuppa tea, gov.
>but you don't get *proper* paupers these days.
Too fu*king right you don't.... the benefit's system well and truly sees to that! Those b'stard Tories have limited the poor buggers to scrapping by on £500 a week. 20p for a cuppa tea, gov.
1
In reply to Indy:
that's the problem - in so many other cases there is nowhere else to go. It must also really piss you off that when people are made homeless the council then has an obligation to house them.
that's the problem - in so many other cases there is nowhere else to go. It must also really piss you off that when people are made homeless the council then has an obligation to house them.
In reply to Indy:
Have you ever been unemployed? You get f*ckall. Nearly lost my flat when I got paid off.
Have you ever been unemployed? You get f*ckall. Nearly lost my flat when I got paid off.
In reply to Indy:
You haven't really considered the points made, have you?
It's the state's actions that have got them into the situation, so the state should manage them out, i.e. offer suitable accommodation to move into.
You seem happy to transfer the responsibility for the expensive decisions of the state onto the heads of the individuals who have the least resources and the lowest level control out of everyone in society. I think your attitude can be summed up by the motto of the thickie-right "I'm alright Jack".
> By definition your too poor to be living where you are to be in the council accommodation in the first place. Why should council tenants be insulated from the economic realities? Anyone else that couldn't afford to live where they do would be forced to move out.
You haven't really considered the points made, have you?
It's the state's actions that have got them into the situation, so the state should manage them out, i.e. offer suitable accommodation to move into.
You seem happy to transfer the responsibility for the expensive decisions of the state onto the heads of the individuals who have the least resources and the lowest level control out of everyone in society. I think your attitude can be summed up by the motto of the thickie-right "I'm alright Jack".
In reply to PeterM:
Rubbish. Move to a more affordable parts/town.
"Newham Council in east London has written to 1,179 housing associations across England seeking help in providing accommodation for 500 families up to 160 MILES OUTSIDE THE CAPITAL."
> that's the problem - in so many other cases there is nowhere else to go.
Rubbish. Move to a more affordable parts/town.
"Newham Council in east London has written to 1,179 housing associations across England seeking help in providing accommodation for 500 families up to 160 MILES OUTSIDE THE CAPITAL."
In reply to MG:
I've always been confused by this too. I have assumed that I'd need to rent or buy a place to live. When I bought, I rented the spare room because I wasn't using it. Why should people that don't rent or buy a place to live get given a spare room in their place that is funded from my taxes? There are exceptions, like disability and carers, but they are exceptions.
I've always been confused by this too. I have assumed that I'd need to rent or buy a place to live. When I bought, I rented the spare room because I wasn't using it. Why should people that don't rent or buy a place to live get given a spare room in their place that is funded from my taxes? There are exceptions, like disability and carers, but they are exceptions.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Come on that's like saying if I am made redundant my ex employer forced me to have a mortgage! No one is forced to live somewhere. It might be nice not to move, or to not rent a room, but I don't see it's an obligation on the state to ensure this.
Come on that's like saying if I am made redundant my ex employer forced me to have a mortgage! No one is forced to live somewhere. It might be nice not to move, or to not rent a room, but I don't see it's an obligation on the state to ensure this.
In reply to jonnie3430:
Jesus, there are some really thick people on this thread, possibly myself included. It's the rent cost not number of bedrooms. By your logic you'd be happy to pay 1100 a month for someone to live in some posh 1 bedroom, than say £550 in a 3 bedroom shithole in Fife. Talk about missing the point. And if everyone was in a dwelling that matched their exact needs do you think the govt would give you a refund on your taxes? Grow up.
Jesus, there are some really thick people on this thread, possibly myself included. It's the rent cost not number of bedrooms. By your logic you'd be happy to pay 1100 a month for someone to live in some posh 1 bedroom, than say £550 in a 3 bedroom shithole in Fife. Talk about missing the point. And if everyone was in a dwelling that matched their exact needs do you think the govt would give you a refund on your taxes? Grow up.
1
In reply to MG:
What about moving costs? The DWP or councils won't help pay for people to move out of the house that is too large. That's costly but isn't taken into consideration.
What about moving costs? The DWP or councils won't help pay for people to move out of the house that is too large. That's costly but isn't taken into consideration.
In reply to PeterM:
Thanks for educating me with such an enlightened view of what is going on. I think the £200 1 bedroom shithole is what I think is more appropriate. If I can educate myself to make me more employable, others can too.
> Jesus, there are some really thick people on this thread, possibly myself included. It's the rent cost not number of bedrooms. By your logic you'd be happy to pay 1100 a month for someone to live in some posh 1 bedroom, than say £550 in a 3 bedroom shithole in Fife. Talk about missing the point. And if everyone was in a dwelling that matched their exact needs do you think the govt would give you a refund on your taxes? Grow up.
Thanks for educating me with such an enlightened view of what is going on. I think the £200 1 bedroom shithole is what I think is more appropriate. If I can educate myself to make me more employable, others can too.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
You seem to have the typical socialist thinking of throwing money at it with the caveat that its OTHER peoples money. After 13 years of Labour Govt. 1997-2010 we have a welfare system that says "Why work? Do nothing I'll make sure your OK"
If say a single person is house blocking a 3 bed flat which they can't afford. They leave. Now a family formally in B&B accommodation at huge financial cost to the council and social cost to the family move in.... happiness. The former house blocker is still entitled to be housed so the council find a cheaper 1 bed flat.... happiness!
Its odd the poorer a person is the more absolutely entitled they believe they are.
> You haven't really considered the points made, have you?
> It's the state's actions that have got them into the situation, so the state should manage them out, i.e. offer suitable accommodation to move into.
> You seem happy to transfer the responsibility for the expensive decisions of the state onto the heads of the individuals who have the least resources and the lowest level control out of everyone in society. I think your attitude can be summed up by the motto of the thickie-right "I'm alright Jack".
You seem to have the typical socialist thinking of throwing money at it with the caveat that its OTHER peoples money. After 13 years of Labour Govt. 1997-2010 we have a welfare system that says "Why work? Do nothing I'll make sure your OK"
If say a single person is house blocking a 3 bed flat which they can't afford. They leave. Now a family formally in B&B accommodation at huge financial cost to the council and social cost to the family move in.... happiness. The former house blocker is still entitled to be housed so the council find a cheaper 1 bed flat.... happiness!
Its odd the poorer a person is the more absolutely entitled they believe they are.
In reply to jonnie3430:
Where are there £200 pound rents? Councils and housing associations very rarely build any 1 bedroom flats. Most are owned by the private sector (another issue - investment properties/more than 1 home) and they usually screw the local council when it comes to letting to those on HB.
Where are there £200 pound rents? Councils and housing associations very rarely build any 1 bedroom flats. Most are owned by the private sector (another issue - investment properties/more than 1 home) and they usually screw the local council when it comes to letting to those on HB.
In reply to RockAngel:
Not good if you are poor, but again, that's no different to everyone else. Private tenants have to pay to move, as do home owners. The principle of housing people appropriately in the limited social housing stock seems reasonable. Maybe more focus on helping/enoucraging movement is needed?
Not good if you are poor, but again, that's no different to everyone else. Private tenants have to pay to move, as do home owners. The principle of housing people appropriately in the limited social housing stock seems reasonable. Maybe more focus on helping/enoucraging movement is needed?
In reply to Indy:
This is an argument against taxation full stop. Why don't you move somewhere like Somalia instead, you'd love it.
Wow, even after all the explanation, you still fail to understand the policy (and my position on it, but one step at a time). What's unfair about the policy is that the council *don't* find a cheaper 1 bed flat. This is a real problem when the tenant *can't* find one either.
If you re-read what's been said, you'll see that I'm in favour of rehousing people who are in big, expensive properties into smaller, cheaper ones. But this isn't what the bedroom tax does.
You just made that up, it's not based on anything. Although actually, you didn't make it up, you sucked it up from the right wing media.
> You seem to have the typical socialist thinking of throwing money at it with the caveat that its OTHER peoples money.
This is an argument against taxation full stop. Why don't you move somewhere like Somalia instead, you'd love it.
> If say a single person is house blocking a 3 bed flat which they can't afford. They leave. Now a family formally in B&B accommodation at huge financial cost to the council and social cost to the family move in.... happiness. The former house blocker is still entitled to be housed so the council find a cheaper 1 bed flat.... happiness!
Wow, even after all the explanation, you still fail to understand the policy (and my position on it, but one step at a time). What's unfair about the policy is that the council *don't* find a cheaper 1 bed flat. This is a real problem when the tenant *can't* find one either.
If you re-read what's been said, you'll see that I'm in favour of rehousing people who are in big, expensive properties into smaller, cheaper ones. But this isn't what the bedroom tax does.
> Its odd the poorer a person is the more absolutely entitled they believe they are.
You just made that up, it's not based on anything. Although actually, you didn't make it up, you sucked it up from the right wing media.
In reply to PeterM:
As £250 a room is cheap for a student in the west end of Glasgow, £200 will exist for a shithole.
As £250 a room is cheap for a student in the west end of Glasgow, £200 will exist for a shithole.
In reply to Indy:
You seem to be quite clueless about the issue. Councils round the country have the problem that they can't 'just' find the appropriate accommodation. They foresaw the problem and in some cases have vowed to evict no-one who falls into arrears because of it. They see it as unjust too. And here's you just harping on about 'just do that', 'just do this'.... You make benefits sound so appealing I'm surprised anyone works...
> so the council find a cheaper 1 bed flat....
You seem to be quite clueless about the issue. Councils round the country have the problem that they can't 'just' find the appropriate accommodation. They foresaw the problem and in some cases have vowed to evict no-one who falls into arrears because of it. They see it as unjust too. And here's you just harping on about 'just do that', 'just do this'.... You make benefits sound so appealing I'm surprised anyone works...
In reply to PeterM:
How many families do you know that are looking for a 1 bed? I think PeterM's comment about thick people applies. If you have enough to fill the rooms, fine. If you haven't, why get an extra on the state?
How many families do you know that are looking for a 1 bed? I think PeterM's comment about thick people applies. If you have enough to fill the rooms, fine. If you haven't, why get an extra on the state?
In reply to jonnie3430:
Highlighted cases of the type where wee jimmy moves out and then mum and dad have to find a 1 bedroom. Would you really expect them to live in a room?
Highlighted cases of the type where wee jimmy moves out and then mum and dad have to find a 1 bedroom. Would you really expect them to live in a room?
Post edited at 17:30
In reply to PeterM:
If they can't afford to buy or rent, then yes. This should be the last resort. What are mummy and daddy doing that they can't afford either?
If they can't afford to buy or rent, then yes. This should be the last resort. What are mummy and daddy doing that they can't afford either?
In reply to MG:
No it isn't. When you took on the mortgage, you were forced to consider the risk of being made redundant and the opportunity to put in place plans to mitigate those circs.
In my view it's the obligation of the state, when it needs to manage-down its expenditure, to do so in ways which don't force the most vulnerable into dilemmas of poverty (e.g. stay here with not enough money to eat or move to miles away where I can't get to work). If that means taking longer over achieving the savings, so be it, perhaps the difference can be made up by collecting a bit more corporate tax, for example?
> Come on that's like saying if I am made redundant my ex employer forced me to have a mortgage!
No it isn't. When you took on the mortgage, you were forced to consider the risk of being made redundant and the opportunity to put in place plans to mitigate those circs.
> No one is forced to live somewhere. It might be nice not to move, or to not rent a room, but I don't see it's an obligation on the state to ensure this.
In my view it's the obligation of the state, when it needs to manage-down its expenditure, to do so in ways which don't force the most vulnerable into dilemmas of poverty (e.g. stay here with not enough money to eat or move to miles away where I can't get to work). If that means taking longer over achieving the savings, so be it, perhaps the difference can be made up by collecting a bit more corporate tax, for example?
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Whereas poor people are completely incapable of any thought or action of their own? Sounds pretty patronising to me.
I think I broadly agree here. It would be nice if say Labour were to say the same, rather than make out it is a terrible thing in principle. I also see this is as a pretty minor matter in comparison with wider housing problems.
> No it isn't. When you took on the mortgage, you were forced to consider the risk of being made redundant and the opportunity to put in place plans to mitigate those circs.
Whereas poor people are completely incapable of any thought or action of their own? Sounds pretty patronising to me.
> In my view it's the obligation of the state, when it needs to manage-down its expenditure, to do so in ways which don't force the most vulnerable into dilemmas of poverty
I think I broadly agree here. It would be nice if say Labour were to say the same, rather than make out it is a terrible thing in principle. I also see this is as a pretty minor matter in comparison with wider housing problems.
In reply to PeterM:
Precisely. A little story which is somewhat relevant to the case, if anything to illustrate how random and useless these 'rules' are.
I live in a cheap shithole bedshit in London. So cheap and shit that i have not seen anything being rented out in London at anything like close to this price, and for that one of the pleasures i get is sharing the bathroom/toilet with 9 other people.
A bit over a year ago had an accident that kept me unable of work for 10 months and had to claim housing benefit. Because i was privileged to share the bathroom/toilet with 9 other people (because who would like to have their own toilet) i was told that they wouldn't pay 100% of my rent because apparently i was flatsharing (with people i never met) and they paid up £15 a week short.
When i spoke with the people from the council they said that was it, and if i didn't like it i had to move.
So I had 2 options
a) Find a cheaper room to rent which would be covered by the benefit. But there are none. So no possible.
b) Rent a one bedroom flat, at a cost 2.5x what my bedsit costs, and being self-contained accommodation the rent would be 100% covered by the benefit.
Any genius explain to me how such an idiotic rule is saving money?
But wait a second, it does, because my problem and that of many people is option c.
c) Stay where you are. And out of the £65 a week you get on income support pay £15 towards rent.
And why would anyone chose option C rather than B? Nobody would, but:
- I was in and out of hospital, unable to move (as in going from a to b), and having to spend 23 hours a day with my leg elevated. So not exactly prime nick to be house hunting.
- Even if i could teletransport to do the home hunting, sign contracts, etc. i had no deposit, or money to pay 6 weeks in advance cause at this stage it was already 2 months i had been unable to work and not earning, and so unlikely to have it until i could work again (and hence not in need of benefits any more), let alone finding a landlord willing to take somebody who was not working and depending on benefits.
So the only way such a scheme can save money is by counting on people being unable to move house and being forced to go with C, which is effectively a reduction on income support for people physically unable to move house or without the means economic or otherwise to move.
That is the big flaw with these blanket idiotic rules, and how it prays in the most vulnerable.
> It's the rent cost not number of bedrooms. By your logic you'd be happy to pay 1100 a month for someone to live in some posh 1 bedroom, than say £550 in a 3 bedroom shithole in Fife.
Precisely. A little story which is somewhat relevant to the case, if anything to illustrate how random and useless these 'rules' are.
I live in a cheap shithole bedshit in London. So cheap and shit that i have not seen anything being rented out in London at anything like close to this price, and for that one of the pleasures i get is sharing the bathroom/toilet with 9 other people.
A bit over a year ago had an accident that kept me unable of work for 10 months and had to claim housing benefit. Because i was privileged to share the bathroom/toilet with 9 other people (because who would like to have their own toilet) i was told that they wouldn't pay 100% of my rent because apparently i was flatsharing (with people i never met) and they paid up £15 a week short.
When i spoke with the people from the council they said that was it, and if i didn't like it i had to move.
So I had 2 options
a) Find a cheaper room to rent which would be covered by the benefit. But there are none. So no possible.
b) Rent a one bedroom flat, at a cost 2.5x what my bedsit costs, and being self-contained accommodation the rent would be 100% covered by the benefit.
Any genius explain to me how such an idiotic rule is saving money?
But wait a second, it does, because my problem and that of many people is option c.
c) Stay where you are. And out of the £65 a week you get on income support pay £15 towards rent.
And why would anyone chose option C rather than B? Nobody would, but:
- I was in and out of hospital, unable to move (as in going from a to b), and having to spend 23 hours a day with my leg elevated. So not exactly prime nick to be house hunting.
- Even if i could teletransport to do the home hunting, sign contracts, etc. i had no deposit, or money to pay 6 weeks in advance cause at this stage it was already 2 months i had been unable to work and not earning, and so unlikely to have it until i could work again (and hence not in need of benefits any more), let alone finding a landlord willing to take somebody who was not working and depending on benefits.
So the only way such a scheme can save money is by counting on people being unable to move house and being forced to go with C, which is effectively a reduction on income support for people physically unable to move house or without the means economic or otherwise to move.
That is the big flaw with these blanket idiotic rules, and how it prays in the most vulnerable.
Post edited at 17:59
7
In reply to MG:
No. The decisions a tenant on housing benefit makes to end up with spare room are demonstrably different to those someone taking out a mortgage makes. You would be right if the tenant was offered the accommodation with the caveat "but in a few years we might take away some of your benefit and not offer you anywhere else, so you'll be screwed, is that OK?".
> Whereas poor people are completely incapable of any thought or action of their own? Sounds pretty patronising to me.
No. The decisions a tenant on housing benefit makes to end up with spare room are demonstrably different to those someone taking out a mortgage makes. You would be right if the tenant was offered the accommodation with the caveat "but in a few years we might take away some of your benefit and not offer you anywhere else, so you'll be screwed, is that OK?".
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Or you could look at it that the safety net gives 'a' roof over your head but no choice about where it is or the size of it. Want choice? Want a particular area? Want a spare room? Get off your a*se and get a job; take a training course if you need new skill; earn a wage and pay for it like the rest of us who pay tax.
Sure there needs to be exemptions and compassion but also there needs to an end to those who think that benefits are a way of life.
You seem to miss the reality of doctors/lawyers/accountants/engineers[1], living till their 30's or 40's in small rooms, in house shares in London that do not meet HMO rules and are not 'good' enough for council tenants. Sure we would all like somewhere nearer work or a flat (let alone a spare room), but can't afford it. We have to make do. If we don’t want to make do we could leave London, but so could the people who complain when their council looks hundreds of miles away to house them.
That is the entitlement that has been mentioned.
[1] not fictional but personal friends
> (In reply to MG)
>
>
> In my view it's the obligation of the state, when it needs to manage-down its expenditure, to do so in ways which don't force the most vulnerable into dilemmas of poverty (e.g. stay here with not enough money to eat or move to miles away where I can't get to work). If that means taking longer over achieving the savings, so be it, perhaps the difference can be made up by collecting a bit more corporate tax, for example?
>>
>
> In my view it's the obligation of the state, when it needs to manage-down its expenditure, to do so in ways which don't force the most vulnerable into dilemmas of poverty (e.g. stay here with not enough money to eat or move to miles away where I can't get to work). If that means taking longer over achieving the savings, so be it, perhaps the difference can be made up by collecting a bit more corporate tax, for example?
Or you could look at it that the safety net gives 'a' roof over your head but no choice about where it is or the size of it. Want choice? Want a particular area? Want a spare room? Get off your a*se and get a job; take a training course if you need new skill; earn a wage and pay for it like the rest of us who pay tax.
Sure there needs to be exemptions and compassion but also there needs to an end to those who think that benefits are a way of life.
You seem to miss the reality of doctors/lawyers/accountants/engineers[1], living till their 30's or 40's in small rooms, in house shares in London that do not meet HMO rules and are not 'good' enough for council tenants. Sure we would all like somewhere nearer work or a flat (let alone a spare room), but can't afford it. We have to make do. If we don’t want to make do we could leave London, but so could the people who complain when their council looks hundreds of miles away to house them.
That is the entitlement that has been mentioned.
[1] not fictional but personal friends
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Should have given me a shout, you could've stayed in my room in Glasgow. But I'd help out because you are the exception, the one that has had bad luck which put you in that place. If you were in a 2 bed with wife and kid and they moved out, I'd expect you to head on too.
Should have given me a shout, you could've stayed in my room in Glasgow. But I'd help out because you are the exception, the one that has had bad luck which put you in that place. If you were in a 2 bed with wife and kid and they moved out, I'd expect you to head on too.
In reply to fraserbarrett:
Of course a large percentage of people receiving housing benefit are working, especially in London.
Of course a large percentage of people receiving housing benefit are working, especially in London.
1
In reply to fraserbarrett:
You haven't understood the issue. People are not asking for a choice or for a spare room. The government can't find a way to rehouse people into somewhere smaller and/or cheaper, so it's saying, we'll just take money off you, because we can do that.
You make out that people are being offered a choice between somewhere with a spare room (which the taxpayer won't subsidise) and somewhere without. That's not the case.
You haven't understood the issue. People are not asking for a choice or for a spare room. The government can't find a way to rehouse people into somewhere smaller and/or cheaper, so it's saying, we'll just take money off you, because we can do that.
You make out that people are being offered a choice between somewhere with a spare room (which the taxpayer won't subsidise) and somewhere without. That's not the case.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
But the choice to rent a spare room does appear to be there, what is wrong with that approach?
But the choice to rent a spare room does appear to be there, what is wrong with that approach?
In reply to MG:
It may work fine in some cases, but don't think it's going to work for everyone. Are all spare rooms rentable - does the landlord need to be persuaded to spend extra to make it so? What's in it for them?
> But the choice to rent a spare room does appear to be there, what is wrong with that approach?
It may work fine in some cases, but don't think it's going to work for everyone. Are all spare rooms rentable - does the landlord need to be persuaded to spend extra to make it so? What's in it for them?
In reply to MG:
I assume that Tax payer would be suitably compensated having originally provided the massively subsidised accommodation?
As an example Camden (London) is offering a 3 bed flat in Camden for £145/week. The market rate would be around £500/week.
> But the choice to rent a spare room does appear to be there, what is wrong with that approach?
I assume that Tax payer would be suitably compensated having originally provided the massively subsidised accommodation?
As an example Camden (London) is offering a 3 bed flat in Camden for £145/week. The market rate would be around £500/week.
Post edited at 19:15
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Where is the evidence that people are being made homeless on mass through rent arrears because of the 'Bedroom Tax' or being forced out into homelessness after the council have refused to house a person where they have a legal duty to do so? As I've already pointed out many London boroughs have very little suitable accommodation in terms of cost or size so have moved people out of London to places that have the right sized accommodation at the right price.
Your right I don't understand, WHERE is the issue?
> You haven't understood the issue. People are not asking for a choice or for a spare room. The government can't find a way to rehouse people into somewhere smaller and/or cheaper, so it's saying, we'll just take money off you, because we can do that.
> You make out that people are being offered a choice between somewhere with a spare room (which the taxpayer won't subsidise) and somewhere without. That's not the case.
Where is the evidence that people are being made homeless on mass through rent arrears because of the 'Bedroom Tax' or being forced out into homelessness after the council have refused to house a person where they have a legal duty to do so? As I've already pointed out many London boroughs have very little suitable accommodation in terms of cost or size so have moved people out of London to places that have the right sized accommodation at the right price.
Your right I don't understand, WHERE is the issue?
In reply to Indy:
So if someone has a low paid job, claims HB and then has to move, as a result of this they'll most likely be looking for another job, and claiming even more!
So if someone has a low paid job, claims HB and then has to move, as a result of this they'll most likely be looking for another job, and claiming even more!
In reply to Indy:
http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/pub.housing.org.uk/Merseyside_bedroom_tax...
http://www.housing.org.uk/media/press-releases/two-thirds-of-households-hit...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-devastating-impact-o...
The list of google search results is pretty long. The upshot is that the policy forces people into debt and then into forms of emergency support...paid for by...the taxpayer! Genius policy!
http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/pub.housing.org.uk/Merseyside_bedroom_tax...
http://www.housing.org.uk/media/press-releases/two-thirds-of-households-hit...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-devastating-impact-o...
The list of google search results is pretty long. The upshot is that the policy forces people into debt and then into forms of emergency support...paid for by...the taxpayer! Genius policy!
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
People AREN't forced into debt. They have a choice like everyone else not subsidised by the Tax payer. If you can't afford your accommodation then you move. As I've repeatedly said the Council will rehouse those that need to be.
People AREN't forced into debt. They have a choice like everyone else not subsidised by the Tax payer. If you can't afford your accommodation then you move. As I've repeatedly said the Council will rehouse those that need to be.
In reply to Indy:
Well I'm glad that you're such an authority on it, compared to organisations such as the National Housing Federation who've done extensive research. Capital letters don't make bald assertions of complete rubbish any more true I'm afraid.
I'm going to have to give up. I said from the outset that if councils were rehousing people then it wouldn't be a problem, but they're not
a) because that's not how the policy works, it doesn't put any responsibility on the council to find alternative accommodation; and more importantly
b) because the housing doesn't exist.
Saying repeatedly that this isn't the case is not going to help make it true. Goodbye.
> People AREN't forced into debt.
Well I'm glad that you're such an authority on it, compared to organisations such as the National Housing Federation who've done extensive research. Capital letters don't make bald assertions of complete rubbish any more true I'm afraid.
> They have a choice like everyone else not subsidised by the Tax payer. If you can't afford your accommodation then you move. As I've repeatedly said the Council will rehouse those that need to be.
I'm going to have to give up. I said from the outset that if councils were rehousing people then it wouldn't be a problem, but they're not
a) because that's not how the policy works, it doesn't put any responsibility on the council to find alternative accommodation; and more importantly
b) because the housing doesn't exist.
Saying repeatedly that this isn't the case is not going to help make it true. Goodbye.
In reply to Indy:
But the commute's likely to cost more than your loss of HB, so you don't move. So you're better off staying put, getting into debt and then...
> Or you commute like millions of others
But the commute's likely to cost more than your loss of HB, so you don't move. So you're better off staying put, getting into debt and then...
In reply to Andy Hardy:
It's a great example of Tory policy making.
1. Say that we need to cut public spending and the benefit bill is a big burden (true enough)
2. Pick a group of people receiving benefits and make out that they're living the life of Riley on everyone else's taxes, and that they're doing through laziness, deviousness and lack of moral fibre. Demonize them.
3. Concoct a policy that gives those people a good hard kick in the nuts
4. Don't do any evaluation or analysis* on the effect of the policy (because there was never going to be any impact, its only purpose was to give demonized group a kick in the nuts in order to win the votes of the small-minded thickie right).
*Channel 4 News asked the DWP what had happened to all social housing tenants living in homes with excess bedrooms. Were they paying more rent? How many had moved? The DWP said it did not have any published data which could answer these questions..."DWP estimates that the impact of claimants moving to smaller accommodation, (as opposed to remaining in their current accommodation), is likely to be broadly neutral in terms of the impact on benefit savings."
http://www.channel4.com/news/bedroom-tax-year-spare-room-subsidy-social-hou...
It's a great example of Tory policy making.
1. Say that we need to cut public spending and the benefit bill is a big burden (true enough)
2. Pick a group of people receiving benefits and make out that they're living the life of Riley on everyone else's taxes, and that they're doing through laziness, deviousness and lack of moral fibre. Demonize them.
3. Concoct a policy that gives those people a good hard kick in the nuts
4. Don't do any evaluation or analysis* on the effect of the policy (because there was never going to be any impact, its only purpose was to give demonized group a kick in the nuts in order to win the votes of the small-minded thickie right).
*Channel 4 News asked the DWP what had happened to all social housing tenants living in homes with excess bedrooms. Were they paying more rent? How many had moved? The DWP said it did not have any published data which could answer these questions..."DWP estimates that the impact of claimants moving to smaller accommodation, (as opposed to remaining in their current accommodation), is likely to be broadly neutral in terms of the impact on benefit savings."
http://www.channel4.com/news/bedroom-tax-year-spare-room-subsidy-social-hou...
Post edited at 20:23
2
In reply to fraserbarrett:
How about my sister, who left school at 15, had three kids (by different men, ) and has never worked.
She has lived in a 4 bedroom council house since 1979.
She now lives alone in it.
> You seem to miss the reality of doctors/lawyers/accountants/engineers[1], living till their 30's or 40's in small rooms, in house shares in London that do not meet HMO rules and are not 'good' enough for council tenants. Sure we would all like somewhere nearer work or a flat (let alone a spare room), but can't afford it. We have to make do. If we don’t want to make do we could leave London, but so could the people who complain when their council looks hundreds of miles away to house them.
> That is the entitlement that has been mentioned.
> [1] not fictional but personal friends
How about my sister, who left school at 15, had three kids (by different men, ) and has never worked.
She has lived in a 4 bedroom council house since 1979.
She now lives alone in it.
In reply to Indy: I'm surprised that you have such strong views about a subject of which you are clearly not informed. I don't care which side if the fence you are, but at least have the selfrespect to read/fact check and understand the issues, if only to remove yourself from the portion of society who wish to be manipulated by political dogma, or coercive media corporations. You have the whole web at your disposal, you've a super computer at your finger tips, a local council, a councillor, your MP, independent organisations, just ask for the information.
It doesn't matter wether or not you think it is a good idea, what is important is wether it is achievable, and had you looked beyond the end if your nose you will find, that it was not. Not one single area has enough housing stock for this to be implemented it doesn't matter which party you agree with, it is not possible, and for any politician to tell you the public that it is,when they know it is not. It scandalous, and in my opinion not the behaviour of someone I want to represent me, or my country. When policies like these are implemented, it is you and I, who will have to carry burden, be it the financial, or social cost.
You should inform yourself so as not to be duped so easily.
It doesn't matter wether or not you think it is a good idea, what is important is wether it is achievable, and had you looked beyond the end if your nose you will find, that it was not. Not one single area has enough housing stock for this to be implemented it doesn't matter which party you agree with, it is not possible, and for any politician to tell you the public that it is,when they know it is not. It scandalous, and in my opinion not the behaviour of someone I want to represent me, or my country. When policies like these are implemented, it is you and I, who will have to carry burden, be it the financial, or social cost.
You should inform yourself so as not to be duped so easily.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Well said.
I think it's not a bad idea on paper, but whether it actually works or not is the question.
Well said.
I think it's not a bad idea on paper, but whether it actually works or not is the question.
In reply to Mr Lopez:
What's wrong with the idea that the number of bedrooms in a house the taxpayer is willing to pay for for someone on benefits should mostly[1] be equal to the number of people in the household? Seems completely reasonable to me.
The implementation is a mess, but the principle seems completely sound. There is a limited pot of money, unless we have tax increases. It's better that it pays for a one bedroom property for two individuals than a three bedroom property for one individual and nothing for the other, surely?
[1] With exceptions, e.g. for situations where a smaller property is not available but has been requested for when it is.
Neil
What's wrong with the idea that the number of bedrooms in a house the taxpayer is willing to pay for for someone on benefits should mostly[1] be equal to the number of people in the household? Seems completely reasonable to me.
The implementation is a mess, but the principle seems completely sound. There is a limited pot of money, unless we have tax increases. It's better that it pays for a one bedroom property for two individuals than a three bedroom property for one individual and nothing for the other, surely?
[1] With exceptions, e.g. for situations where a smaller property is not available but has been requested for when it is.
Neil
In reply to PeterM:
They are of lower priority than housing as many needy cases as is possible.
It is *not* a tax. It is the Government paying you less money than it already is. The correct term for it is a benefit cut.
Neil
> I take it 'sense of community' and 'home' are meaningless then?
They are of lower priority than housing as many needy cases as is possible.
> The bedroom tax is simply a tax on the poorest /weakest.
It is *not* a tax. It is the Government paying you less money than it already is. The correct term for it is a benefit cut.
Neil
Post edited at 00:18
In reply to Philip:
Again, an implementation issue. I live in a 3 bedroom house in which the third bedroom is very small (and indeed some of them on the street have knocked the flimsy plasterboard wall through to make a big master bedroom instead). It isn't really big enough for a bed, though a cot would fit (I use it as an office as I work from home mostly). I'd figure that any sensible policy would class it as a utility room and consider it a 2 bedroom property.
Neil
> What's wrong with calling it a tax? It's a reduction in income, albeit not earnt income.
> How does is handle people renting 3 bedroom houses where the 3rd bedroom is too small to be used?
Again, an implementation issue. I live in a 3 bedroom house in which the third bedroom is very small (and indeed some of them on the street have knocked the flimsy plasterboard wall through to make a big master bedroom instead). It isn't really big enough for a bed, though a cot would fit (I use it as an office as I work from home mostly). I'd figure that any sensible policy would class it as a utility room and consider it a 2 bedroom property.
Neil
Post edited at 00:21
In reply to Indy:
Having read through it, almost all the objections are implementation issues, not issues with the concept.
Neil
Having read through it, almost all the objections are implementation issues, not issues with the concept.
Neil
In reply to Zoro:
Wading through that diatribe in order to find a nugget of "fact" amongst a sea of banal condemnation we find;
Evidence for this?
> I'm surprised that you have such strong views about a subject of which you are clearly not informed. I don't care which side if the fence you are, but at least have the selfrespect to read/fact check and understand the issues, if only to remove yourself from the portion of society who wish to be manipulated by political dogma, or coercive media corporations. You have the whole web at your disposal, you've a super computer at your finger tips, a local council, a councillor, your MP, independent organisations, just ask for the information.
> It doesn't matter wether or not you think it is a good idea, what is important is wether it is achievable, and had you looked beyond the end if your nose you will find, that it was not. Not one single area has enough housing stock for this to be implemented it doesn't matter which party you agree with, it is not possible, and for any politician to tell you the public that it is,when they know it is not. It scandalous, and in my opinion not the behaviour of someone I want to represent me, or my country. When policies like these are implemented, it is you and I, who will have to carry burden, be it the financial, or social cost.
> You should inform yourself so as not to be duped so easily.
Wading through that diatribe in order to find a nugget of "fact" amongst a sea of banal condemnation we find;
> Not one single area has enough housing stock for this to be implemented it doesn't matter which party you agree with, it is not possible, and for any politician to tell you the public that it is,when they know it is not.
Evidence for this?
In reply to Indy:
Yep. No one gets help to actually move, even if they have to move from a house with one extra bedroom to a smaller house. So as well as paying extra for that room out of their limited budget, they have to save £300 in 4 weeks to rent a van for the weekend or more if they need to hire a removal company
Yep. No one gets help to actually move, even if they have to move from a house with one extra bedroom to a smaller house. So as well as paying extra for that room out of their limited budget, they have to save £300 in 4 weeks to rent a van for the weekend or more if they need to hire a removal company
In reply to Andy Hardy:
My daughter was in an ex council one bedroom property, the the local council were interested in buying it back, as they did not have the 1 beds to give to people who wanted to move as they could not afford to stay in the home with the extra bedroom.
My daughter was in an ex council one bedroom property, the the local council were interested in buying it back, as they did not have the 1 beds to give to people who wanted to move as they could not afford to stay in the home with the extra bedroom.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
for anyone in social housing and wanting/needing to move, they don't just get given another property by the housing association/council. It doesn't work like that. Now, you have to find the empty property & bid on it against several other people wanting that property & you may or may not be chosen to move there. Further to that, if you have rent arrears for whatever reason, you are not allowed to move until those are paid off.
And social housing groups don't put handy signs on their properties, saying they are up for rent once the previous tenant has moved out. They don't even put these vacant properties on their websites. To know that there is or going to be a vacant property, you need to know before the previous tenant moves out so you can bid on it
for anyone in social housing and wanting/needing to move, they don't just get given another property by the housing association/council. It doesn't work like that. Now, you have to find the empty property & bid on it against several other people wanting that property & you may or may not be chosen to move there. Further to that, if you have rent arrears for whatever reason, you are not allowed to move until those are paid off.
And social housing groups don't put handy signs on their properties, saying they are up for rent once the previous tenant has moved out. They don't even put these vacant properties on their websites. To know that there is or going to be a vacant property, you need to know before the previous tenant moves out so you can bid on it
Post edited at 01:25
In reply to Indy:
No they won't! It's extremely difficult to get any council or housing association to just give you a house to move into. You have to be homeless for a minimum of 6 months for them to even consider them putting you on their books, then you have to find the empty property & bid on it against several other people in the same situation and you may or may not be offered that property.
No they won't! It's extremely difficult to get any council or housing association to just give you a house to move into. You have to be homeless for a minimum of 6 months for them to even consider them putting you on their books, then you have to find the empty property & bid on it against several other people in the same situation and you may or may not be offered that property.
In reply to MG:
If rooms can be rented, I really don't see the issue. I would certainly do that if I was short of cash, rather than expecting other tax payers to pay my mortgage. If people are being prevented from doing this and not being offered alternatives, I can see a problem. The principle seems sound though, to me.
In the 60's my parents had a very large Flat in Glasgow( rented) they then had lodgers to make ends meet.
My sister and I had one large room. One other spare room had a chap from my father's workplace( a long term arrangement) the other spare large room tended to have students from the Uni. I remember fondly Judy and Betsy two Americans who lodged with us for a while. They were full of fun, and cooked us kids loads of treats, their home cooked popcorn in particular was fantastic.
Anyway, whilst I'm not keen on people being forced out of what could be a family home in an area where they have lots of friends ( maybe even a job !) But, my point is it is fair enough that they should be considering taking in lodgers. (But this should not be not imposed, they should have the final say if they are prepared to accept someone)
If rooms can be rented, I really don't see the issue. I would certainly do that if I was short of cash, rather than expecting other tax payers to pay my mortgage. If people are being prevented from doing this and not being offered alternatives, I can see a problem. The principle seems sound though, to me.
In the 60's my parents had a very large Flat in Glasgow( rented) they then had lodgers to make ends meet.
My sister and I had one large room. One other spare room had a chap from my father's workplace( a long term arrangement) the other spare large room tended to have students from the Uni. I remember fondly Judy and Betsy two Americans who lodged with us for a while. They were full of fun, and cooked us kids loads of treats, their home cooked popcorn in particular was fantastic.
Anyway, whilst I'm not keen on people being forced out of what could be a family home in an area where they have lots of friends ( maybe even a job !) But, my point is it is fair enough that they should be considering taking in lodgers. (But this should not be not imposed, they should have the final say if they are prepared to accept someone)
In reply to MG:
The bedroom rules for Housing Benefit for all other than Council Tenants have been in place for a LONG time. The "bedroom tax" is effectively equalising the position of all those receiving housing benefit rather than the previous rules which massively favoured those who could get into "true" social housing. Until the bedroom tax came in, council tenants on HB got their rent paid, more or less regardless, while those renting privately got the appropriate rate for the lower of what they are allowed and what they actually have. So you can't just take the entitlement and get a nicer 1 bed instead of a 2 bed
They are far more restrictive than Bedrooms allowed = number of persons in household!
The rules when I studied them were something like:
1 bedroom per couple/adult
1 bedroom per 2 children under 7
1 bedroom per 2 children of the same sex under 14
A bedroom is defined as a room other than a kitchen or bathroom and I think 1 reception room is permitted, otherwise the "dining room" would also be deemed a bedroom for the purposes of the tax. Have no idea if rooms that are too small for practical occupation are counted - didn't come up.
So a single mother with a boy and a girl over 7 would be entitled to 3 bedrooms, a couple with 2 boys would be entitled to 2. Interestingly given the prevalence of "equally" shared custody this is a MASSIVE issue as whoever has the children for longer is entitled to bedrooms for the children, while the person with less time gets nothing! If exactly equally shared, whoever is awarded the right to child benefit is permitted the bedrooms for Housing Benefit purposes, the other party gets big fat nothing, which IMHO is far more of an injustice than the bedroom tax.
The biggest issue is that the benefits of being within the social housing sector are more than just the lower rent - once you're in, you're in - and it is not a housing option of last resort - if you accept you will be unable to buy a house, it is the next best thing as you can stay more or less forever so long as you pay the rent, right to buy,
This issue is very much a British thing - on the continent, renting is considered far more normal for most people, whereas here the expected norm is to buy. We have swung from the old Rent Acts days, where all true tenancies provided security of tenure, and gave landlords very limited rights - hence old stories about bullying sitting tenants - to the situation today where the landlord has all the power. The intentions of the legislators were good - they were concerned that very little housing was available for rent because landlords didn't want sitting tenants, and there were all kinds of shenanigans trying to make a tenancy look like lodging to avoid the Rent Act rules - but as is often the case, the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction.
Not sure what I'd suggest as a solution - probably the biggest culprit is Gordon Brown's raid on pensions convincing the relatively well off that their retirement will be best secured through owning a "few" buy to let properties rather than in a traditional pension fund. Of course changing the situation through removing the incentive to be a private landlord (compulsory purchase/punitive taxation of those owning more than one dwelling house, whether used by them or others) would not be conducive to winning an election!
The bedroom rules for Housing Benefit for all other than Council Tenants have been in place for a LONG time. The "bedroom tax" is effectively equalising the position of all those receiving housing benefit rather than the previous rules which massively favoured those who could get into "true" social housing. Until the bedroom tax came in, council tenants on HB got their rent paid, more or less regardless, while those renting privately got the appropriate rate for the lower of what they are allowed and what they actually have. So you can't just take the entitlement and get a nicer 1 bed instead of a 2 bed
They are far more restrictive than Bedrooms allowed = number of persons in household!
The rules when I studied them were something like:
1 bedroom per couple/adult
1 bedroom per 2 children under 7
1 bedroom per 2 children of the same sex under 14
A bedroom is defined as a room other than a kitchen or bathroom and I think 1 reception room is permitted, otherwise the "dining room" would also be deemed a bedroom for the purposes of the tax. Have no idea if rooms that are too small for practical occupation are counted - didn't come up.
So a single mother with a boy and a girl over 7 would be entitled to 3 bedrooms, a couple with 2 boys would be entitled to 2. Interestingly given the prevalence of "equally" shared custody this is a MASSIVE issue as whoever has the children for longer is entitled to bedrooms for the children, while the person with less time gets nothing! If exactly equally shared, whoever is awarded the right to child benefit is permitted the bedrooms for Housing Benefit purposes, the other party gets big fat nothing, which IMHO is far more of an injustice than the bedroom tax.
The biggest issue is that the benefits of being within the social housing sector are more than just the lower rent - once you're in, you're in - and it is not a housing option of last resort - if you accept you will be unable to buy a house, it is the next best thing as you can stay more or less forever so long as you pay the rent, right to buy,
This issue is very much a British thing - on the continent, renting is considered far more normal for most people, whereas here the expected norm is to buy. We have swung from the old Rent Acts days, where all true tenancies provided security of tenure, and gave landlords very limited rights - hence old stories about bullying sitting tenants - to the situation today where the landlord has all the power. The intentions of the legislators were good - they were concerned that very little housing was available for rent because landlords didn't want sitting tenants, and there were all kinds of shenanigans trying to make a tenancy look like lodging to avoid the Rent Act rules - but as is often the case, the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction.
Not sure what I'd suggest as a solution - probably the biggest culprit is Gordon Brown's raid on pensions convincing the relatively well off that their retirement will be best secured through owning a "few" buy to let properties rather than in a traditional pension fund. Of course changing the situation through removing the incentive to be a private landlord (compulsory purchase/punitive taxation of those owning more than one dwelling house, whether used by them or others) would not be conducive to winning an election!
1
In reply to randomsabreur:
To look at it differently, is it not better that the landlord business is still a small business/individual thing, rather than us all renting Tesco Value Apartments?
Neil
To look at it differently, is it not better that the landlord business is still a small business/individual thing, rather than us all renting Tesco Value Apartments?
Neil
Post edited at 16:17
In reply to randomsabreur:
Interesting choice when identifying your biggest culprit, he would be well down my list. For one he, somewhat belatedly, allowed local authorities to directly invest in new social housing again after the best part of 30 years of selling off, but the receipts going to the government and not reinvested in social housing. The authors of the Housing Act 1980 would get my vote.
Interesting choice when identifying your biggest culprit, he would be well down my list. For one he, somewhat belatedly, allowed local authorities to directly invest in new social housing again after the best part of 30 years of selling off, but the receipts going to the government and not reinvested in social housing. The authors of the Housing Act 1980 would get my vote.
In reply to Neil Williams:
The issue is that with the massive rise in the prices of smaller houses (fuelled by demand from buy to let types) more people with more money are renting. The landlords see the house as an investment, to be traded like a share - made enough money, move on, rather than an ongoing source of income. Each time the house is sold the existing tenant is generally given notice because the landlord wants the house to be appealing to those wanting to buy to live as well as investment types. The average "desireable" tenant is the young professional just out of training who expects their salary to rise, and don't expect to stay in the same place for that long - the intention is to buy when they know what they want, can get the deposit together. The current buy to let market/assured shorthold tenancy system works well for those who expect to live a transient life, moving on as their life changes, but is pretty rubbish for someone wanting to put down roots and not move at the whims of a landlord.
The issue is that other than in rural areas there is little or no market for long term lets, where the tenant would be allowed to pain the walls white with a hint of blue rather than magnolia, would be able to put pictures on the wall, add shelves, improve storage etc.
I'm not talking about landlords who have got 2 or 3 houses rented out - there are plenty with 50 or more - is that really a small business.
I would prefer to rent a Tesco Value apartment that I knew I could stay in for 5 years and decorate/improve to my taste without punishment rather than live in a perfect, characterless, magnolia walls, cream carpet place and know I might have to move every 6 months because the landlord has decided to cash in their investment, interest rates are too high, or their student child/relative quite fancies the place.
There should be a middle ground where both landlord and tenant can be protected as necessary but where the landlord-tenant relationship is seen as a relatively long term 1 rather than being more like a hotel where you stay for 6 months rather than 1 night!
The issue is that with the massive rise in the prices of smaller houses (fuelled by demand from buy to let types) more people with more money are renting. The landlords see the house as an investment, to be traded like a share - made enough money, move on, rather than an ongoing source of income. Each time the house is sold the existing tenant is generally given notice because the landlord wants the house to be appealing to those wanting to buy to live as well as investment types. The average "desireable" tenant is the young professional just out of training who expects their salary to rise, and don't expect to stay in the same place for that long - the intention is to buy when they know what they want, can get the deposit together. The current buy to let market/assured shorthold tenancy system works well for those who expect to live a transient life, moving on as their life changes, but is pretty rubbish for someone wanting to put down roots and not move at the whims of a landlord.
The issue is that other than in rural areas there is little or no market for long term lets, where the tenant would be allowed to pain the walls white with a hint of blue rather than magnolia, would be able to put pictures on the wall, add shelves, improve storage etc.
I'm not talking about landlords who have got 2 or 3 houses rented out - there are plenty with 50 or more - is that really a small business.
I would prefer to rent a Tesco Value apartment that I knew I could stay in for 5 years and decorate/improve to my taste without punishment rather than live in a perfect, characterless, magnolia walls, cream carpet place and know I might have to move every 6 months because the landlord has decided to cash in their investment, interest rates are too high, or their student child/relative quite fancies the place.
There should be a middle ground where both landlord and tenant can be protected as necessary but where the landlord-tenant relationship is seen as a relatively long term 1 rather than being more like a hotel where you stay for 6 months rather than 1 night!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...