[Kate!]

Here's a link to an article about the new Bedroom Tax, to be introduced next April. This is an issue which will affect many, including me personally if my current financial circumstances are the same when the time comes, and it's not a good thing in my opinion.

Read the article and share your thoughts below please?

http://www.housing.org.uk/policy/wel...droom_tax.aspx

[Livia]

In the broad sense, it does make sense that some people with spare bedrooms could stand living in a smaller residence if there are bigger families who need the room. In a less broad sense, it's simplistic to say that this approach is going to work for everyone.

[Pyramid*]

It has it pros and cons.

Spare rooms could be used to generate some form of income for those unemployed or on low income.

Moving to a smaller property could free up housing for those who need larger properties but cannot obtain such because of those living in homes with rooms they do not need - which in turn will reduce the cost of heating a larger house with rooms that are not used - and saves the householder money.

Not an ideal solution for all by a long shot -but I can see advantages as well as disadvantages.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

It has it pros and cons.

Spare rooms could be used to generate some form of income for those unemployed or on low income.

Moving to a smaller property could free up housing for those who need larger properties but cannot obtain such because of those living in homes with rooms they do not need - which in turn will reduce the cost of heating a larger house with rooms that are not used - and saves the householder money.

Not an ideal solution for all by a long shot -but I can see advantages as well as disadvantages.

It is against the rules of your tenancy to sublet rooms in council property.

As said previously there is a shortage of smaller council accomodation.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by kizzy

It is against the rules of your tenancy to sublet rooms in council property.

As said previously there is a shortage of smaller council accomodation.

If the person was housed in a bigger property because of lack of smaller properties it does seem a bit harsh to then charge them extra for a room they can't let out anyway. It doesn't make alot of sense.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

If the person was housed in a bigger property because of lack of smaller properties it does seem a bit harsh to then charge them extra for a room they can't let out anyway. It doesn't make alot of sense.

Niamh, when has anything this government done made any sense?...
It will disrupt lives, families, schools, work...will they care?...no.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

It is against the rules of your tenancy to sublet rooms in council property.

As said previously there is a shortage of smaller council accomodation.

Perhaps this is something the Government is looking to change....

There may be a shortage of council accomodation: as much as there are too many families crowded into houses that are too small for the amount of people in the household - that's a common complaint that I read about far more than families being unhappy about being placed in accomodation that they have spare rooms in.

[Vicky.]

The new bedroom tax proposals are not fair IMO. We were put in a 3 bedroomed house because there were no one or two beds available and wouldnt be for a long period of time. There is STILL a shortage of smaller properties and basically people will be forced to pay what they cant afford while stuck on a 2+ year waiting list again for a smaller property.

We have recently decorated our house, it has cost a small fortune...I cant imagine having to move now. Luckily we are working so we dont get full housing benefit rates anyway so this wont affect us as much as others, though the small bit of housing benefit we do get will likely be cut...but I cant imagine being on JSA or something and having to find an extra 30 quid or whatever every week because of the councils screwing up in the first place and selling off the majority of their homes, and ending up just having to stick people in whatever empty properties were available at the time.

Also a lot of people I know have taken larger houses than they need in very unpopular areas to avoid being homeless also. The council suggested they moved there, they did not ask for a larger property.

[Jake.]

Surely if people pay to live in a larger house, then thats up to them and shouldn't be punished for it?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by JH95

Surely if people pay to live in a larger house, then thats up to them and shouldn't be punished for it?

From a quick speed read - they aren't paying for it - as it's being paid by Government benefits as it's applying to those on the benefits system.. (unless I've misread).

Welfare reforms will cut the amount of benefit that people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home – find out how this will affect people.

The Government has said that it will introduce new size criteria for housing benefit claims in social housing.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by JH95

Surely if people pay to live in a larger house, then thats up to them and shouldn't be punished for it?

I believe it affects those in social housing

[Marc]

Since when was having a spare bedroom a bad thing

[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!]

Yes, it applies to those in Social Housing, if you own your own home it doesn't affect, it's not like poll tax. Not sure how it works in relation to private tenants.

I live in social housing, a three bedroomed property. Moved in here in 2004. One bedroom is spare, as there is just me and my son here, but it's what the Housing Association offered us at the time, and it is local to my mum, so I have no intention or desire to move. Plus moving is a major stressful event and one that I don't think I could cope with in the foreseeable future, due to personal circumstance. Another factor in not wanting to move is that, like Vicky, I have spent money on carpeting and decorating our home, and moving incurs quite a bit of expense, yes fair enough you can take carpets with you to save some money, but they may not fit rooms etc.

Come next April, should I still be (fingers crossed not) out of work, then I will have to pay approximately £16 per week from Jobseekers Allowance (£71 per week) and it's hard enough to manage as it is! Social Landlords should have some conscience and reduce their rents to offset this situation, the poorest people are always the hardest hit it seems.

[Livia]

It seems that people are saying they were housed in bigger proserties because smaller places were unavailable. Strangely, most people I know in social housing are in smaller places dying to get into bigger ones. It's an enigma.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

It seems that people are saying they were housed in bigger proserties because smaller places were unavailable. Strangely, most people I know in social housing are in smaller places dying to get into bigger ones. It's an enigma.

I know, odd isnt it :S

Me and a few friends have extra rooms, but only because this is what we were offered at the time. I originally applied for either 1/2 bed flat/house but I was about to be made homeless within 2 months so was classed as priority...unsure about the exact details about others getting larger properties though. I was offered a 3 bedroom house (a long way away from the area I wanted though but couldnt afford to be picky) within 1 week. When I asked about this I was told that it would have taken (at that time) averagely 5 months for the kind of property I wanted to be available, and they couldnt guarantee it would be anywhere near the area I originally chose either (would have been a LOT better for work had we been housed in that area). I imagine this is a longer waiting list now...especially as a lot of people will be 'panic moving'

On the other hand, I also know quite a few people who need a larger property. The mother of my partners kids(2 boys 6 and 10. And a girl 8) has a 2 bedroom property and has been on the waiting list for around 4 years for a larger one...but she has to have it in round about the same area so that her kids school lives dont get affected.

Its very odd when you think about it. So many in smaller properties that need larger ones, while larger ones are given to people who dont need them because there are no smaller properties available apparently. Twisted logic IMO

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I know, odd isnt it :S

Me and a few friends have extra rooms, but only because this is what we were offered at the time. I originally applied for either 1/2 bed flat/house but I was about to be made homeless within 2 months so was classed as priority...unsure about the exact details about others getting larger properties though. I was offered a 3 bedroom house (a long way away from the area I wanted though but couldnt afford to be picky) within 1 week. When I asked about this I was told that it would have taken (at that time) averagely 5 months for the kind of property I wanted to be available, and they couldnt guarantee it would be anywhere near the area I originally chose either (would have been a LOT better for work had we been housed in that area). I imagine this is a longer waiting list now...especially as a lot of people will be 'panic moving'

On the other hand, I also know quite a few people who need a larger property. The mother of my partners kids(2 boys 6 and 10. And a girl 8) has a 2 bedroom property and has been on the waiting list for around 4 years for a larger one...but she has to have it in round about the same area so that her kids school lives dont get affected.

Its very odd when you think about it. So many in smaller properties that need larger ones, while larger ones are given to people who dont need them because there are no smaller properties available apparently. Twisted logic IMO

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

[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 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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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 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.

[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 -