[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The housing association that operates in my area have been reassigning rooms in some of their houses Basically small second bedrooms have been altered to utility rooms, plumbed in for washing machines and stuff.

I'm a bit shocked at this, why have they done it purely for their tenants?
It's a nice thing to do but I have to admit I'm surprised.

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

That doesnt happen yet. Thats when universal credit starts.

It's already come into play in some areas. Ashton-Under-Lyne being one local to myself. I read a week or so ago that as much as £200 million spent on the Coalition’s main welfare reform programme may have been wasted due to mis-management, lack of planning and delays caused by the new system. £34 million spent on computer systems and services for the project has been written off because it delivered no value for taxpayers. And this system was designed to save money?

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

That doesnt happen yet. Thats when universal credit starts.

Oh dear....it can only get worse.


I am surprised the house builders aren't looking into building one and two bedroom flats on brownfield sites. Keeping it as basic as possible for low rental fees.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

It's already come into play in some areas. Ashton-Under-Lyne being one local to myself. I read a week or so ago that as much as £200 million spent on the Coalition’s main welfare reform programme may have been wasted due to mis-management, lack of planning and delays caused by the new system. £34 million spent on computer systems and services for the project has been written off because it delivered no value for taxpayers. And this system was designed to save money?

Oh yeah, I forgot UC was being trialled in some areas. I actually agree with the idea behind UC but as usual, its being implemented wrong IMO.

The 'spare room subsidy' (for arista..and the rest who get hung up on the wording) was never going to save money, nor could it ever 'free up larger' housing when the smaller places just arent there. People can't pay what they don't have, and cant move to non-existent preoperties. All that happens is councils end up with a load of tenants who are in debt, so the councils lose money. Meanwhile the odd tenant may kill themselves due to debt worries, but thats one number off the books so who cares...

Honestly, I dont think the goal of the recent benefit changes was ever to save money. It was to punish the poor for being poor. I know I am crossing into conspiracy theory territory there though

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Oh yeah, I forgot UC was being trialled in some areas. I actually agree with the idea behind UC but as usual, its being implemented wrong IMO.

The 'spare room subsidy' (for arista..and the rest who get hung up on the wording) was never going to save money, nor could it ever 'free up larger' housing when the smaller places just arent there. People can't pay what they don't have, and cant move to non-existent preoperties. All that happens is councils end up with a load of tenants who are in debt, so the councils lose money. Meanwhile the odd tenant may kill themselves due to debt worries, but thats one number off the books so who cares...

Honestly, I dont think the goal of the recent benefit changes was ever to save money. It was to punish the poor for being poor. I know I am crossing into conspiracy theory territory there though

Well I think you have summed it all up perfectly and it is a pity the heartless Ministers of Govt. cannot read and take on board what you have outlined.
Really well said absolutely.

[Kizzy]

I totally agree too vicky, this 'arms length' policy that the government maintained has now gone and effectively cut ties with a cross section of society... but it's not their voters and they've convinced them it's the right thing to do so....

[michael21]

uc will not be complete roll out UK wide till 2017 an less it scrap by then

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Oh yeah, I forgot UC was being trialled in some areas. I actually agree with the idea behind UC but as usual, its being implemented wrong IMO.

The 'spare room subsidy' (for arista..and the rest who get hung up on the wording) was never going to save money, nor could it ever 'free up larger' housing when the smaller places just arent there. People can't pay what they don't have, and cant move to non-existent preoperties. All that happens is councils end up with a load of tenants who are in debt, so the councils lose money. Meanwhile the odd tenant may kill themselves due to debt worries, but thats one number off the books so who cares...

Honestly, I dont think the goal of the recent benefit changes was ever to save money. It was to punish the poor for being poor. I know I am crossing into conspiracy theory territory there though

It's not really a conspiracy theory, it's economic fact... The current government have had a sustained agenda to "blame benefits" and to turn the middle wage earners against low / no wage people (cant even say middle class / working class in regards to this any more as increasingly, there are many "traditionally" middle class people stuck on low wages).

They've done this quite successfully and kept the bulk of the population in a festering state of playing the blame-game, which stops them from wondering what the real problem is, and turning their gaze towards the malignant shambles that is modern politics, to the corrupt banking culture, or to themselves (for the 2 decades of spending money that never existed) as a big part of the blame. The easiest people to make a target for blame are those with no realistic prospect of fighting back. They dont have the financial power to fight back legally, and if they use people power to take to the streets in protest they will instantly be branded rioters / thugs.

It's also easy to remove empathy for them by saying "look! They're all drug users and alcoholics, they manage to find money for that!" and therefore dehumanise them. Conveniently ignoring that the culture of alcohol and drug abuse is caused BY, not the cause OF, generations of low socioeconomic status.

[Josy]

I was just reading that our local council has just brought in a policy that states they won't be evicting anyone in 2013/14 that has fallen into arrears due to the housing benefit reductions.

I'm not sure if any other councils are doing this but it would be good if they did...

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Josy

I was just reading that our local council has just brought in a policy that states they won't be evicting anyone in 2013/14 that has fallen into arrears due to the housing benefit reductions.

I'm not sure if any other councils are doing this but it would be good if they did...

I agree,however I know of people who are already facing eviction proceedings by their councils.

Since I really haven't yet come across a council that actually likes this measure,I would be pleased to see that no evictions will be carried out so it is good that some are taking that line now.

Awful policy,unfair, heartless and unjust,hopefully ending up one of the bigger nails in this awful Govts, coffin.

[user104658]

Again it's a case of completely jumping the gun, even if it was a good idea. IF they had made an effort to build new, decent quality one and two bedroom properties all across the UK and THEN asked people with "too many" rooms to move into them, that would be one thing... but they brought it in when there simply aren't any :/. In every area I've lived in (in Scotland and also down in Lancashire), 1-bed council properties are basically non-existent. In Scotland most of the smaller council properties are all but identical (they literally look exactly the same in the area I'm in now as in the area I went to school - over 100 miles away) and that is, 4-in-a-block "house" style flats, with 2 bedrooms. That's just how they built smaller council properties. It's all there is!

My mum (who is 60, on early retirement) lives in one such property and is currently paying bedroom tax. Thankfully it's not budget breaking for her, but still, when she was told about it she did say "Well, I'll have a look at the one bedroom options anyway before I make a decision". The reply?

"Oh... err... there... there actually aren't any one bedroom properties in this town..."
"Are any likely to become available?"
"No... no it's not that there aren't any available... there aren't any."

it's a completely stupid situation, again probably caused by the policy makers not having left their ivory towers in decades. It's not that they just don't care that there aren't suitable properties available (although, they don't), it's that they simply are completely unaware of how anyone on less than a 75k salary actually lives... let alone someone on the 12k-to-20k full benefits income.

[Kizzy]

Those 4 block flats are called masonettes here. I agree the only 1 bed properties were mill cottages the council bought and were termed 'miscellaneous properties' on the housing forms of the 80's/90's, they got snapped up pdq during right to buy.
Other than them it's high rise, can you imagine your mother being forced to move to the 14th floor of a tower block due to this?