[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I was looking at this about 3 months ago as I heard someone getting at a Liberal Counclillor about it on one of their street stall things they have at times.

The way I see it is, people were made tenants of these houses, for a great number it has been their home for life almost, they have many memories over the years, they have done all the decoration of the house and also the gardens too if it is a 3 bedroomed house say with a garden.
A lot then, of personal investment from them as to the property.

I understand they were likely given secure tenancies and if needed the financial aid was always assessed on the occupation of the house as in numbers in it.
If for instance,someone was eligible for housing benefit, but had someone living in with them,the housing benefit was reduced by that person living in the house too.
If only the tenant lived in the house nothing was reduced as to housing benefit.

I understand also, that the likely change will be ,around 10%+ will now be taken off the housing benefit payment granted if you have one bedroom vacant,regardless of whether family stay at times whatever.
If you have 2 bedrooms unoccupied then likely around 20%+ will be removed from the housing benefit granted.

If I have got all that right, then I think firstly,yes, it is wrong. I find it incredible that people can avoid massive tax payments and then you have this measure again likely in the main, hitting the poorest,weakest and most vulnerable of society.
If it had right to it, and I can see the thinking behind having 3 bedroomed houses for families,I feel this is not the way.
I think the benefit reductions proposed are way too high.ironically these Liberal councillors all said it was wrong too but it had benn supported by the parliamentary Lib Dems along with the Conservatives.

The questioner as to this though had a great point that they were getting around £80 weekly housing benefit, had a vacant bedroom so would lose around £9 a week if they stayed in the house, however to move them to a 2 bedroomed flat,the only ones available, were for rents near as high as the house is, so to move to the flat, the same original housing benefit would then have to be paid still.
Then they would likely have to cover cost of decoration that home as they would want it to be.

For me, overall, it is a badly thought out policy again, the reduction levels of the benefits seem too high and it is in my view unfair to come along now after so many decades of these payments permitted and in place to then take them away.
I believe in a cap as to benefits but this is not the way I feel.

The Govt,needs to invest and get going building programmes of affordable housing, social housing as I now believe it is called.
Not attack and get at tenants who by no fault of their own are now going to have even futher financial pressures put on them with this policy which I fear on reading about it and looking at its detail will cause far more problems than it will likely solve in the long run and do little to cut expenditure on housing benefit payments too.

Great post joey, It will solve nothing and disrupt further social cohesion.. its a mess!

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Perhaps the last part in bold is what the Government are trying to address.

Yes I get that, but the way they are going about it is so unfair. Some have lived in their houses for 20+ years and will now have to move. All I can imagine is a little old couple who have watched their kids and grandkids grow up in their lovely 2 bedroomed house(that they have done up themselves to have exactly how they want it), being forced to move to a dingy one bedroomed flat. I know thats ridiculous as cases like that will be few and far between, but I think things like this all the time

Also as with my point above about seperated parents...its simply not fair to deny someone access to their kids because the councils ****ed up in the first place with allocation of properties. They should never have started selling council houses for a quick fix of cash.

This wont really affect us, as we get ~£5 per week housing benefit which isnt even hardly worth mentioning. But I still see the problems that people on lower incomes than me/jobseekers/people on disability benefits etc will be facing here.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I was looking at this about 3 months ago as I heard someone getting at a Liberal Counclillor about it on one of their street stall things they have at times.

1. The way I see it is, people were made tenants of these houses, for a great number it has been their home for life almost, they have many memories over the years, they have done all the decoration of the house and also the gardens too if it is a 3 bedroomed house say with a garden.
A lot then, of personal investment from them as to the property.

I understand they were likely given secure tenancies and if needed the financial aid was always assessed on the occupation of the house as in numbers in it.
If for instance,someone was eligible for housing benefit, but had someone living in with them,the housing benefit was reduced by that person living in the house too.
If only the tenant lived in the house nothing was reduced as to housing benefit.

I understand also, that the likely change will be ,around 10%+ will now be taken off the housing benefit payment granted if you have one bedroom vacant,regardless of whether family stay at times whatever.
If you have 2 bedrooms unoccupied then likely around 20%+ will be removed from the housing benefit granted.

If I have got all that right, then I think firstly,yes, it is wrong. I find it incredible that people can avoid massive tax payments and then you have this measure again likely in the main, hitting the poorest,weakest and most vulnerable of society.
If it had right to it, and I can see the thinking behind having 3 bedroomed houses for families,I feel this is not the way.
I think the benefit reductions proposed are way too high.ironically these Liberal councillors all said it was wrong too but it had benn supported by the parliamentary Lib Dems along with the Conservatives.

The questioner as to this though had a great point that they were getting around £80 weekly housing benefit, 2... had a vacant bedroom so would lose around £9 a week if they stayed in the house, however to move them to a 2 bedroomed flat,the only ones available, were for rents near as high as the house is, so to move to the flat, the same original housing benefit would then have to be paid still.
Then they would likely have to cover cost of decoration that home as they would want it to be.

For me, overall, it is a badly thought out policy again, the reduction levels of the benefits seem too high and it is in my view unfair to come along now after so many decades of these payments permitted and in place to then take them away.

I believe in a cap as to benefits but this is not the way I feel.

The Govt,needs to invest and get going building programmes of affordable housing, social housing as I now believe it is called.

Not attack and get at tenants who by no fault of their own are now going to have even futher financial pressures put on them with this policy which I fear on reading about it and looking at its detail will cause far more problems than it will likely solve in the long run and do little to cut expenditure on housing benefit payments too.

1. People who have mortgages who find it difficult to make ends meet, who live in homes for as many years - and have invested similar years to their homes that are now too big for them, often sell up and down size due to change in circumstances, or in times of hardship, lower income etc. I'm not entirely sure why those who rely on social housing should expect not to do the same thing where possible.

2. Fairly hefty assumption Joey that moving a family into a smaller flat is likely to cost the same in housing benefit. The chances are: that moving to smaller premises: the rent would be less, thus less housing benefit in £ terms.

[Kizzy]

Kiz, please desist - I found the term ironic. My posts are pertaining to the subject matter - not pertaining to you individually which you always try to throw the spin on. If you are unemployed: I am not going to not post because you don't agree with my comments.

You seem to have difficulty in not taking some personal slight every single time I make a post - that is your issue, not mine

There was no irony, only your thinly veiled jibes.
Your opinion as to what constitutes as 'the working class' has nothing to do with the topic in discussion...I do believe you have taken this opportunity to again pull the subject back to your closed thread which I feel is very unfair to kate.

[joeysteele]

I have checked this aout again and there are wrong figures in my post above, it is up to 14% will be deducted from Housing benefit if you have one bedroon vacant and up to 25% deducted from housing beneift for having 2 bedrooms vacant.
However,it will only apply to tenants who are of working age still.

I still think it is a badly thought out policy and the figures are far worse than even those Lib Dem councillors mentioned. 14% and 25% is really not acceptable in my view.

In social housing now then, I can see a good number ending up with large rent arrears and many likely evictions. The costs of dealing with such will end up being likely enormous.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Kiz, please desist - I found the term ironic. My posts are pertaining to the subject matter - not pertaining to you individually which you always try to throw the spin on. If you are unemployed: I am not going to not post because you don't agree with my comments.

You seem to have difficulty in not taking some personal slight every single time I make a post - that is your issue, not mine

There was no irony, only your thinly veiled jibes.
Your opinion as to what constitutes as 'the working class' has nothing to do with the topic in discussion...I do believe you have taken this opportunity to again pull the subject back to your closed thread which I feel is very unfair to kate.

As I say: I will post how I feel on a subject matter. Both you and Kate seem persistent to fault everything that I comment on - and there is no need.

You and Kate may possibly just be feeling a little sensitive, which may be understandable, but that doesn't mean I can't put my point over regarding a subject - which is what I am doing.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Marc

Since when was having a spare bedroom a bad thing

Exactly, that could be a guest's room or something if they are staying over for the night.

Tories punishing the innocent people once again, keep it up as the awful Labour Party will be back in power soon just to make it worse.

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

As I say: I will post how I feel on a subject matter. Both you and Kate seem persistent to fault everything that I comment on - and there is no need.

You and Kate may possibly just be feeling a little sensitive, which may be understandable, but that doesn't mean I can't put my point over regarding a subject - which is what I am doing.

there is no need for you to drop your snide digs into threads either.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yes I get that, but the way they are going about it is so unfair. Some have lived in their houses for 20+ years and will now have to move. All I can imagine is a little old couple who have watched their kids and grandkids grow up in their lovely 2 bedroomed house(that they have done up themselves to have exactly how they want it), being forced to move to a dingy one bedroomed flat. I know thats ridiculous as cases like that will be few and far between, but I think things like this all the time

Also as with my point above about seperated parents...its simply not fair to deny someone access to their kids because the councils ****ed up in the first place with allocation of properties. They should never have started selling council houses for a quick fix of cash.

This wont really affect us, as we get ~£5 per week housing benefit which isnt even hardly worth mentioning. But I still see the problems that people on lower incomes than me/jobseekers/people on disability benefits etc will be facing here.

I completely understand the top part - and it does seem somewhat heartless - but what is the ideal answer? That's the difficult balance to find.

As I said in my first post: I can see the advantages as well as the disadvantages - as for the single parents sharing access: I'm not sure that part has been thought out at all - one parent gains, the other loses out ... that's harsh.

[Vicky.]

Also interesting to note...I think LHA (which is what you get if you private rent) is actually higher than housing benefit for council properties. For a long time you have only been entitled to a rate equal to the amount of bedrooms you NEED. However, I had a private rented house about 4 years ago, and the LHA was about £75 per week for one bedroom. £85 for two. And I dont know the rates for a 3. I'm sure the LHA rates vary based on the area you live in too, so if you moved to a different area you would be entitled to much more LHA.

I am entitled to 2 bedrooms once I have my child.

Lets assume that I recieve full housing benefit. That would be around £80. It will still be £80 once I have my child. I could move to a private rented 2 bedroomed property and it would actually cost the government more to house me in a smaller property. So due to this move, the government might actually end up spending much more on benefits...I know they reckon the reason for these changes is to accomodate larger families, but personally I think its more about saving a bit of cash, as with all the other benefit cuts and changes If this is the motivation, I have a feeling it may bite them on the arse.


Edit. Just checked online calculator on jobcentre website

Weekly LHA rate for September 2012
Durham BRMA

Two Bedrooms Rate:
£88.85 per week

for where I live now (if I moved to private rented)

But if I HAD to move into private rented, obviously I would move close to work, which would be newcastle area

Weekly LHA rate for September 2012
Tyneside BRMA

Two Bedrooms Rate:
£103.85 per week

Government would be paying an extra £23 per week on average for me to move from where I am currently, if I couldnt afford the changes.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

1. People who have mortgages who find it difficult to make ends meet, who live in homes for as many years - and have invested similar years to their homes that are now too big for them, often sell up and down size due to change in circumstances, or in times of hardship, lower income etc. I'm not entirely sure why those who rely on social housing should expect not to do the same thing where possible.

2. Fairly hefty assumption Joey that moving a family into a smaller flat is likely to cost the same in housing benefit. The chances are: that moving to smaller premises: the rent would be less, thus less housing benefit in £ terms.

It was the Lid Dem councillors who highlighted the flat rents,because they were more modern flats,they had rents as high as the house rent.
As to your first point, a great number have problems with rents and mortgages and all those people who have get my full sympathy and understanding.
However,for these people in social housing, like Kate, who I hope she doesn't mind me saying. They have difficulties and were given this arrangement as to up to full housing benefit if needed, for the property they are in when hard times came.
It cannot be fair or in fact justified in my opinion, to then through no fault of themselves,after being given that support to then have it taken away so drastically,

I wasn't going to answer you directly but you jump in again about assumptions, I state many times 'likely' in my post, one can only assume as you can only too, since the change is not even operational yet.

However, I would prefer you to leave me out of your getting at and generalisation of others and debating games where anyone who disagrees gets a put down.
You,like me, are not always wrong but not always right either but please leave me out of your games on here to get reactions. Thank you.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Also interesting to note...I think LHA (which is what you get if you private rent) is actually higher than housing benefit for council properties. For a long time you have only been entitled to a rate equal to the amount of bedrooms you NEED. However, I had a private rented house about 4 years ago, and the LHA was about £75 per week for one bedroom. £85 for two. And I dont know the rates for a 3. I'm sure the LHA rates vary based on the area you live in too, so if you moved to a different area you would be entitled to much more LHA.

I am entitled to 2 bedrooms once I have my child.

Lets assume that I recieve full housing benefit. That would be around £80. It will still be £80 once I have my child. I could move to a private rented 2 bedroomed property and it would actually cost the government more to house me in a smaller property. So due to this move, the government might actually end up spending much more on benefits...I know they reckon the reason for these changes is to accomodate larger families, but personally I think its more about saving a bit of cash, as with all the other benefit cuts and changes If this is the motivation, I have a feeling it may bite them on the arse.

I'm not picking something up right here... If the1 bed works out at £75, the 2 bed because of baby works out £80.... how would it cost more money to house you in smaller property....... you'd be entitled to the 2 bed house at the existing £80. I'm confused !

just seen your edit: is this based on 'council lets' vs private lets?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

As I say: I will post how I feel on a subject matter. Both you and Kate seem persistent to fault everything that I comment on - and there is no need.

You and Kate may possibly just be feeling a little sensitive, which may be understandable, but that doesn't mean I can't put my point over regarding a subject - which is what I am doing.

Thats unfair pyra there is no vendetta..
If someone infers I am lower than working class for being unemployed then yes then I get sensitive as it is a very rude and insensitive thing to say...Yes you have the right to say it, that however does not make it right or fair.
I am done on this topic with you now pyra tbh.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I'm not picking something up right here... If the1 bed works out at £75, the 2 bed because of baby works out £80.... how would it cost more money to house you in smaller property....... you'd be entitled to the 2 bed house at the existing £80. I'm confused !

Im comparing the council housing costs (housing benefit)to private rented(LHA)

As the council waiting lists will be so long with this move...a lot may have to go private instead. Private costs are much higher than council. LHA is a lot higher than housing benefit depending on the amount of rooms you need and the area you are in

(see my edit...I think it might make more sense that way )

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

just seen your edit: is this based on 'council lets' vs private lets?

Yup, though not the lets as such, the amount of benefit you can claim based on if you live council V private.

A lot will be forced into private, as it will have to be a quick move, something the council wont be able to do with the housing shortages. Outcome = benefit bills being even higher.

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Thats unfair pyra there is no vendetta..
If someone infers I am lower than working class for being unemployed then yes then I get sensitive as it is a very rude and insensitive thing to say...Yes you have the right to say it, that however does not make it right or fair.
I am done on this topic with you now pyra tbh.

it is indeed, however it's what I've come to expect from this poster, who seems to think they can be as rude as they like to whoever they like, but can't stand it when someone rightly objects to it. God complex.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

It was the Lid Dem councillors who highlighted the flat rents,because they were more modern flats,they had rents as high as the house rent.
As to your first point, a great number have problems with rents and mortgages and all those people who have get my full sympathy and understanding.

However,for these people in social housing, like Kate, who I hope she doesn't mind me saying. They have difficulties and were given this arrangement as to up to full housing benefit if needed, for the property they are in when hard times came.

It cannot be fair or in fact justified in my opinion, to then through no fault of themselves,after being given that support to then have it taken away so drastically,

I wasn't going to answer you directly but you jump in again about assumptions, I state many times 'likely' in my post, one can only assume as you can only too, since the change is not even operational yet.

However, I would prefer you to leave me out of your getting at and generalisation of others and debating games where anyone who disagrees gets a put down.
You,like me, are not always wrong but not always right either but please leave me out of your games on here to get reactions. Thank you.

Firstly: I would far prefer to not individualise the subject to discussing Kate's own personal circumstances.

I made no assumptions Joey: you did. You also made incorrect assumptions on the percentages as you'd not checked the figures in the link provided.

I am a posting member Joey - and if you (or anyone else for that matter) puts up a post that I wish to comment on, pertaining to the points you have made on the subject matter, then I am entitled to do so.

[Vicky.]

OK back on topic please. I know things like this bring out very strong opinions in people but can members please not get personal about each other. Cheers.

[arista]

Convert Bedrooms into Art Studio or Living Room2


And have just 1 working bedroom.

[Vanessa]

Originally Posted by arista

Convert Bedrooms into Art Studio or Living Room2


And have just 1 working bedroom.

That's a great idea, Arista!

[arista]

"Spare rooms could be used to generate some form of income"


Or become your Living Room 2
or Art Studio.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Vanessa

That's a great idea, Arista!

Yes remove spare beds
Convert into a 2nd Living Room


2nd living room can be for non TV
for when mates pop round etc.


They can not touch you.

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Firstly: I would far prefer to not individualise the subject to discussing Kate's own personal circumstances.

I made no assumptions Joey: you did. You also made incorrect assumptions on the percentages as you'd not checked the figures in the link provided.

I am a posting member Joey - and if you (or anyone else for that matter) puts up a post that I wish to comment on, pertaining to the points you have made on the subject matter, then I am entitled to do so.

- where is the flogging a dead horse emoticon when you need it, sigh -

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Im comparing the council housing costs (housing benefit)to private rented(LHA)

As the council waiting lists will be so long with this move...a lot may have to go private instead. Private costs are much higher than council. LHA is a lot higher than housing benefit depending on the amount of rooms you need and the area you are in

(see my edit...I think it might make more sense that way )

I caught that after your edit - and from that explanation - It makes perfect sense - and would also explain where Joey's thoughts have also come from in respect of same costs or higher.

What's the solution? Build more social / council housing of course - but where does all the money to do so, come from?

It's a difficult one - I can see why there is a need to look at these things, absolutely - - what or how a solution is reached that meets everyones expectations - is a different matter entirely.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes remove spare beds
Convert into a 2nd Living Room


2nd living room can be for non TV
for when mates pop round etc.


They can not touch you.

Spread the word Arista.