[user104658]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

What's really unfair is, those on benefits who rent from the private sector don't get penalized for having a spare room and private sector rentals are usually higher than social housing. Why is this only applicable to social housing ?

That's not actually how it works... private renting people on benefits are given a "bedroom allowance" the same as those in social housing, and the money (housing allowance) paid to them is only enough to cover the "local average" for a property of that size.

e.g. if a family of 4 is in a 3 bedroom house with a private rental price of £550 pcm, but they are only "entitled to" 2 bedrooms and the local average for a 2 bedroom property is £450 pcm, then the absolute maximum they will get for rent is £450 pcm. The rest they will have to cover by other means.

This is actually a huge problem because, in truth, what they call "the average" seems to be dramatically skewed towards the lower end. E.g. for benefits purposes, around where I live, they say a 2-bed average is £450. I have very rarely seen a 2-bedroom property being rented out for less than £525.

Another example: single people, I think under the age of 35, only get a "shared accomodation" rate. Enough to rent one room, not a whole one-bed flat. Problem? In towns like this one, there is little to zero shared accomodation available. As usual, it's something that works fine in larger towns and cities, but is utterly useless outside of that.

I'd actually guess that the majority of housing allowance private sector tenants will have to add extra cash from elsewhere to make up their rent. Usually more than the excess charged for a spare room in a council-owned property.