[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

If I owned my house or was renting my house with a tenancy agreement , no one is going to come along and start telling me I have too many bedrooms and try and make me change my house or flat.

So what people are affected by this ? Could it be people who live in houses rent free where the council pays the rent for these people. If that is the case then I think you'll agree the people living there are not in the strongest bargaining position and may struggle to negotiate if asked to downsize because they have bedrooms they don't use and many families are squeezed into tiny houses with 2 or 3 children sharing a bedroom.

So what exactly is wrong with trying to redress the imbalance in the system ?

Have you read the article nedusa?... It would appear not, where would you like these people to go? you are all for this social cleansing of the social housing stock, what I don' hear is any soloution from you as to alternative accomodation.
Come on, we're all ears, what's the solution?

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Have you read the article nedusa?... It would appear not, where would you like these people to go? you are all for this social cleansing of the social housing stock, what I don' hear is any soloution from you as to alternative accomodation.
Come on, we're all ears, what's the solution?

I thought I understood the article perhaps I'm missing something , I'll read it again, I thought the idea was that people with spare or surplus bedrooms which they don't use and find expensive to heat are prepared to swap houses with families who are squeezed into houses with too few bedrooms for the number of children they have. I thought the plan in theory made sense. Perhaps I have not fully understood all the implications of this new law.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I thought I understood the article perhaps I'm missing something , I'll read it again, I thought the idea was that people with spare or surplus bedrooms which they don't use and find expensive to heat are prepared to swap houses with families who are squeezed into houses with too few bedrooms for the number of children they have. I thought the plan in theory made sense. Perhaps I have not fully understood all the implications of this new law.

In theory, most of the welfare reforms make sense.

However the unfair way they are implemented and actually thought out(or not thought out, as it happens)...well it makes me think of a child sitting trying to bash a square peg into a round hole with a gigantic hammer.

[Vicky.]

There is not enough smaller properties for these people to move to.

and

It affects workers too. Not just the unemployed.

That is all.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

There is not enough smaller properties for these people to move to.

and

It affects workers too. Not just the unemployed.

That is all.

Then surely once the smaller properties have all been filled with more suitable families the scheme will stop, it will only work as a two way transfer. Once the smaller properties have been exchanged people living in larger bedroomed properties would not be able to participate and as such would not be involved.

That's right isn't it ??

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Then surely once the smaller properties have all been filled with more suitable families the scheme will stop, it will only work as a two way transfer. Once the smaller properties have been exchanged people living in larger bedroomed properties would not be able to participate and as such would not be involved.

That's right isn't it ??

Not quite. I'll give an example to try and explain one of the problems

A family are very very unlikely to be in a 1 bed flat/house. As not many 1 bed social properties exist in the first place(confirmed by many councils). So lets assume these overcrowded families are in 2 bedroomed properties.

A couple in a highrise 2 bed flat are 'underoccupying'.

The couple could not swap with the family. As it wouldnt make a difference. They also cant downsize, as there arent any one bed places. They will be hit with this penalty even though they cant actually do anything about it, nor would them moving actually help anything.


--

I live in social housing right now. I dont get housing benefit (at the moment) though so this doesnt apply to me, but it might in the future.

When we applied for a council property, we asked for a 2 bedroomed place. We were told point blank that the waiting list was years long for a 2 bed place, but they had a 3 bed place available that could be moved into within the next fortnight..and we were entitled to it as my partners children stay with us on a regular basis.

So, years ago, the waiting list was massive for a small property..so people were housed in properties larger than what they actually needed (we could have slept on the sofa when gavs kids were here, for example). The government are blaming the low paid/unemployed for their **** ups yet again. they sold off all the council stock (both tories and labour) and never built more. They housed people in places they are now 'underoccupying' and they think its fair to penalise these claimants when there is nothing at all the claimant can do to help their situation.

To add to this...pensioners are the group most likely to be rattling round in 3/4 bed houses. But they are exempt.

People (like me) who are officially 'underoccupying' but dont claim housing benefit...arent expected to downsize either.

So its not about freeing up housing at all. Or both of those groups would be included. It would be everyone in social housing.

[Vicky.]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_2989607.html

No alternative accomodation available for 96% of people hit by this bedroom tax. Thats how fair this is...

Labour said freedom of information responses showed local councils had sufficient one and two bedroom properties to house only one in 20 of those families with spare rooms.

Responses from 37 authorities across Britain revealed 96,041 households faced losing benefit but there were only 3,688 smaller homes available.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_2989607.html

No alternative accomodation available for 96% of people hit by this bedroom tax. Thats how fair this is...

Yet still they will be taking money off their original entitlements even though they have nowhere else to downsize too.

I think that is totally shocking, the sooner this shower of a heartless,gutless Govt is thrown out the better.
It nearly makes you ashamed to be British but I know I can do my bit to get rid of this lot in 2015,it is just a pity that is the only concession the Lib Dems got from the Conservatives, a fixed term parliament so that we have to wait until 2015 before they can be got rid of.

Imagine the stress, worry, panic and chaos this will be causing to the numbers listed by you above.
Its inhuman.

[Vicky.]

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenan...526399.article

Northern Ireland to reject the bedroom tax.

At least some of the UK has a bit of sense.

[michael21]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenan...526399.article

Northern Ireland to reject the bedroom tax.

At least some of the UK has a bit of sense.

the uk all have sense its just the mp the run the county that done

green man tax coming in soon

[Niall]

I think the fact that the government have pushed this through shows their callous and detached nature to the general public. This is going to do nothing but generate so many needless cases of homelessness. I don't understand how this ever was seen as a viable law..

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Niall

I think the fact that the government have pushed this through shows their callous and detached nature to the general public. This is going to do nothing but generate so many needless cases of homelessness. I don't understand how this ever was seen as a viable law..

I agree with you, I really fail to grasp how in law an entitlement can be given to people and then on a whim cut from them.

I said earlier,I can understand no more entitlements being given,ot raising entitlements being frozen even but it should be legally binding and definitely morally binding that entitlements already in place cannot be taken away when the recipients are doing nothing wrong in the first place.
This has to be a totally wrong and discriminative policy.

The Conservative party was only able to get this through thanks to the 50+ Lib Dem MPs.
That is what I think staggers me the most as to this cruel and heartless measure.

[smeagol]

The sooner this nerds who are running this country are voted out the better.
biggest mistake ever was people voting them in now everybody is paying day by day with some new half brained scheme to kill of the poor.