Bedroom tax

[angelandbump]

(Just to add as I hadn't thought about the lack of smaller housing)

In the military which I guess is a form of social housing as it is provided by the government, we have certain entitlements, with just 1 DS we are only entitled to a 2 bed, if when we moved here there were only 3 beds available they would have moved us into a 3 bed but we would have only paid rent for the cost of a 2 bed because it isn’t our fault they don’t have enough 2 beds, quite jammy really cheap rent and an extra room (there was a 2 bed though damn lol). You can kind of see both sides, it doesn’t seem somewhat fair people will be forced to pay more as there isn’t another option in smaller houses, but at the end of the day they benefit from the space??

I only just saw this but I am not sure how they benefit. If I had a one child and a three bedroom then the third bedroom would simply sit unused so I would be paying for something that I didnt benefit from.

I guess it’s hard to quantify, some people may see it as a waste, others may use it as junk room, play room, spare room. Extra space is seen as a good thing until it has a price tag. It isn’t fair that people aren’t in the position to downsize and are forced to pay extra for space they don’t want, but they do have that extra space so the government are choosing to charge, not saying it is right, as I say in the military they don’t see it that way we don’t have to pay for space we aren’t entitled to but have to have.

I don't know how military housing works. I think people would have a cheek to comment when it is for someone who fights for the county. x

 

[special_kala]

The bedroom tax would be fair if there were smaller propertys to move into.

I dont think its fair that it only effects those on HB so those who are obviously lacking in money.

Some people in council houses earn 40k plus yet still pay £450 rent for a 4 bedroom house in my town...private renting that would cost at least £1000. If the goverment want to sort out their money they should introduce a tiered system on how much rent people in council houses pay. When we first started renting we earnt less then half what some people i know earn yet were paying double on our rent.

 

[My_First]

I absolutely agree with Kala. I remember reading here a lady saying that she and her Oh got a house from the council when they were not able to afford it. Fine. Move forward 6 years, her oh now earns in excess of 50k a year, and STILL gets to keep the house. How on EARTH is that fair. It should be heavily means tested and updated every year. 50k is a lot of money, and many, many people have their own mortgages on this sort of money. Its the blooming system, it needs a radical overhaul, its stuck in the 80's. Times change and things move on.

 

[GracieGoo]

I agree with it is principle. We have our own home, I am a sahm and hubby works a hard long houred job to just cover our costs. We have no extra cash and have to be careful with each and every penny. We cannot afford childcare for both our children so me working would be difficult given that hubby works dodgy shifts (virtually every week is different)
We know several families who live in 3-4 bedroom rented council houses and have spare rooms, they can afford luxury holidays, clothes, sky television the majority paid through benefits. So this 'spare cash could surely pay for this extra room?!, or they could downsize perhaps - If we couldnt afford to pay for our mortgage we would have to downsize so what is the difference?

But I do believe each case should be looked into on an individual basis. Benefits/housing all of it needs to be looked at individual basis, and also more importantly be kept up to date. Why a couple would need a 2-3 bedroom house when their children have left home is beyond me, when a young mum with her 2 young children are living in a shelter is crazy. My understanding was council housing was for those in need. Surely when people are in need it is usually as a temporary measure - weather that is 20 years (from the start of a family to their children leaving home) to a couple of months... This is my opinion and I know not everyone will agree with, but people believe because they have lived somewhere for 20 years they think it is theirs - when this is not the case...

 

[Mummy Bean]

I think the goverment have difficult job...they are trying to break the culture of some (not all) young ppl...of get preg get free house. i live in an over populated area of london...and i see this all the time. also the whole benefit trap...do u work for minium wage, never see ur kids to struggle through life, or stay home take the benefits and get to spend time with ur kids....again i know many where it simply better off for them to stay on benefits as work just doesnt pay enough... but how do you do this with out harming those who are already in the system?

i think the whole infastructure needs looking at, schools and education need improving, more apprenticships and job opportunties, more affordable homes and better mortages and finally cheaper childcare...all of which the goverment are working on but takes time, cost money and isnt a quick fix. then there always going those who scam the system taking from those in real need.

i think the housing swap process needs to be made easier...so for those who cant afford this tax have an actual option to move. but over all i do think it a good idea...to push things in the right direction but as long as those who are in true need of extra space are not penalised.

 

[Lucy139]

I totally agree with the new bedroom tax for people who have more rooms than they need especially those who are claiming benefits to live there it doesn't affect oap's and anyone who pays full rent..
Totally disagree with the fact it effects disabled people that defo needs rethinking...

Also strongly disagree with the fact they have brought out a benefit that covers the benefit you will be loosing on bedroom tax where the hell is the logic in that ??

 

[Natsku]

Dunno if anyone has mentioned this but what about single dads? Whose kids don't technically live with him but stay on weekends or whatever. Seems unfair for that kind of situation (as for many others of course)

That said when I first heard of this I thought no big deal, its basically the same here as in you get housing benefit according to a certain number of square metres per person but then again there is loads of one and two bedroom apartments over here so its not hard to find one the right size but I expect its not the same in the UK.

 

[angelandbump]

Dunno if anyone has mentioned this but what about single dads? Whose kids don't technically live with him but stay on weekends or whatever. Seems unfair for that kind of situation (as for many others of course)

That said when I first heard of this I thought no big deal, its basically the same here as in you get housing benefit according to a certain number of square metres per person but then again there is loads of one and two bedroom apartments over here so its not hard to find one the right size but I expect its not the same in the UK.

i see it from the other side were at the moment, (SOME) single men (like a man i work with) have 3 bed homes because for 1 weekend a month they have 2 children of different ages and gender staying.
If it is split custody then they will take that into consideration but if it is a man who has a child stay one night ever other weekend then i'm kind of split

 

[Pearls18]

Dunno if anyone has mentioned this but what about single dads? Whose kids don't technically live with him but stay on weekends or whatever. Seems unfair for that kind of situation (as for many others of course)

That said when I first heard of this I thought no big deal, its basically the same here as in you get housing benefit according to a certain number of square metres per person but then again there is loads of one and two bedroom apartments over here so its not hard to find one the right size but I expect its not the same in the UK.

I think they should pay extra for the children to be able to say over, if they aren't registered as living there I doubt they'll get a concession? I wonder how it works if a dad is looking for council home, if his children can be counted? I assume only if he has some form of shared custody?

 

[Natsku]

Dunno if anyone has mentioned this but what about single dads? Whose kids don't technically live with him but stay on weekends or whatever. Seems unfair for that kind of situation (as for many others of course)

That said when I first heard of this I thought no big deal, its basically the same here as in you get housing benefit according to a certain number of square metres per person but then again there is loads of one and two bedroom apartments over here so its not hard to find one the right size but I expect its not the same in the UK.

I think they should pay extra for the children to be able to say over, if they aren't registered as living there I doubt they'll get a concession? I wonder how it works if a dad is looking for council home, if his children can be counted? I assume only if he has some form of shared custody?

Would be pretty unfair if its shared custody with something like a 50/50 split though.

 

[mumoffive]

Its wrong wrong wrong.
We should be building more social housing. This is NOT the answer to the problem. There are no smaller homes for people to move to so they are forced to pay extra from the little income they have or move to private rentals where they are at the mercy of landlords increasing rents anyway. I am not affected by this but i dont agree with it. It stinks. It also adds to the HUGE divide between rich and poor that the government are trying to create. If you are poor, in social housing and on benefits you are limited to rooms! next they will be saying you are only allowed to have one child!!! [ or maybe that has also been discussed in relation to child benefit!!!] Its just feels very wrong and deeply divisive.

and on thinking about it more, its like the cut to welfare. Make work pay??? What work??? there are few jobs now! again people are trapped in their situation.

 

[Foogirl]

I'm all for this policy, in principle.

First it should be understood that the Government and local councils for a long time have offered incentives (in the thousands of pounds) to downsize out of larger properties into smaller ones, to free up those properties for those who actually need them. And people have refused to do it. We had the carrot now we have the stick. And it is coming at a time where private home owners are having to cut their cloth accordingly and downsize or buy smaller properties so to allow those who rely on the taxpayer to subsidise their existence without them having to change things is a little unfair. We all will suffer longer if this remains to be the case.

It's true the housing stock is out of whack and there are fewer smaller properties. I think it would be fairer if those who are willing to move, apply to their Council for a smaller property and only if they refuse it, should they have to face a cut in their housing benefit. But in my experience, the reason there are so few smaller properties is because these are cramped full with larger families who can't be given a bigger house because there are none available. I suspect if there is a balancing out of properties and occupiers, the lack of provision won't be such a big issue. It should also be remembered, one of the reasons Councils and housing associations stopped building smaller properties was because people were refusing to move in to them. I've seen first hand, the decision making process that goes in to these estates and that really is a major factor. Bear in mind too, that much of our current housing stock was built at a time where most people requiring homes were two parent families, and extended families tended to stay together for longer too. There were fewer single parent households, and nowadays, so many teenagers want to move out into their own place much sooner. One housing association I was involved with built an entire development of one and two bedroom properties which they were finding very difficult to fill with families for whom they were appropriate (including some designed for those with limited mobility) Instead they were over-run with applications from people who needed 3 bedroom properties but could not get some. Oh and, folk didn't like the area........

The last budget had a fair amount of money released for building social housing so hopefully the problem can at least go part way to being solved.

I think the whole issue of social housing needs to be re-assessed. Every tenancy should be on a five year basis. At the end of five years, you are re-assessed against the same point scoring system that got you the house in the first place. You will be means tested, your whole situation will be taken in to account. If you still require the house you are in, you keep it. If you need a smaller or bigger one, you will be moved and if you no longer require social housing, you will be moved out of the system. The ultra radical in me will allow you only 3 terms (i.e 15 years) of social housing then you are out. But that's maybe a step too far If you have children who reach the age of majority, whether they be working or pregnant or whatever, they are your responsibility and they won't be given a Council house if there is still room in yours for them.

Needless to say, I wouldn't be a very popular prime minister. More hated than Thatcher for sure!

Also wanted to add on the disability thing. I think it is fair enough there isn't an automatic right for disabled residents to be exempt from this as there are some who are quite able to downsize. I think the current process of allowing their case to be assessed on an individual basis is the right way to do it. I've heard a load of "horror stories" about people with a disability who are "going to be forced to move" I'd like to wait for the outcome of their assessment and be sure that is actually the case before deciding it is wholly unfair. I'm hoping their appeals will be granted, but I'm sure there will be some who wont. The reason I say this is, if the disability thing was to be automatic, and I were in a council property, we would be exempt. And really, we wouldn't need to be.

 

[angelandbump]

I'm all for this policy, in principle.

First it should be understood that the Government and local councils for a long time have offered incentives (in the thousands of pounds) to downsize out of larger properties into smaller ones, to free up those properties for those who actually need them. And people have refused to do it. We had the carrot now we have the stick. And it is coming at a time where private home owners are having to cut their cloth accordingly and downsize or buy smaller properties so to allow those who rely on the taxpayer to subsidise their existence without them having to change things is a little unfair. We all will suffer longer if this remains to be the case.

It's true the housing stock is out of whack and there are fewer smaller properties. I think it would be fairer if those who are willing to move, apply to their Council for a smaller property and only if they refuse it, should they have to face a cut in their housing benefit. But in my experience, the reason there are so few smaller properties is because these are cramped full with larger families who can't be given a bigger house because there are none available. I suspect if there is a balancing out of properties and occupiers, the lack of provision won't be such a big issue. It should also be remembered, one of the reasons Councils and housing associations stopped building smaller properties was because people were refusing to move in to them. I've seen first hand, the decision making process that goes in to these estates and that really is a major factor. Bear in mind too, that much of our current housing stock was built at a time where most people requiring homes were two parent families, and extended families tended to stay together for longer too. There were fewer single parent households, and nowadays, so many teenagers want to move out into their own place much sooner. One housing association I was involved with built an entire development of one and two bedroom properties which they were finding very difficult to fill with families for whom they were appropriate (including some designed for those with limited mobility) Instead they were over-run with applications from people who needed 3 bedroom properties but could not get some. Oh and, folk didn't like the area........

The last budget had a fair amount of money released for building social housing so hopefully the problem can at least go part way to being solved.

I think the whole issue of social housing needs to be re-assessed. Every tenancy should be on a five year basis. At the end of five years, you are re-assessed against the same point scoring system that got you the house in the first place. You will be means tested, your whole situation will be taken in to account. If you still require the house you are in, you keep it. If you need a smaller or bigger one, you will be moved and if you no longer require social housing, you will be moved out of the system. The ultra radical in me will allow you only 3 terms (i.e 15 years) of social housing then you are out. But that's maybe a step too far If you have children who reach the age of majority, whether they be working or pregnant or whatever, they are your responsibility and they won't be given a Council house if there is still room in yours for them.

Needless to say, I wouldn't be a very popular prime minister. More hated than Thatcher for sure!

Also wanted to add on the disability thing. I think it is fair enough there isn't an automatic right for disabled residents to be exempt from this as there are some who are quite able to downsize. I think the current process of allowing their case to be assessed on an individual basis is the right way to do it. I've heard a load of "horror stories" about people with a disability who are "going to be forced to move" I'd like to wait for the outcome of their assessment and be sure that is actually the case before deciding it is wholly unfair. I'm hoping their appeals will be granted, but I'm sure there will be some who wont. The reason I say this is, if the disability thing was to be automatic, and I were in a council property, we would be exempt. And really, we wouldn't need to be.

I would vote for you as prime minister . I agreed with every point there!

 

[stardust599]

What about the single Dad issue? This is the situation my LOs father is facing (actually it is looking likely he has a permanent job again starting in the next month so hopefully no longer in this situation)

I.E.

2 bedroom Council House (was allocated specifically for contact with the children, courts will usually only grant overnight access if the children have a room with beds etc. of their own)
Jobseekers Allowance due to redundancy 5months ago (over 200 job applications, 6 interviews, a few weeks of temporary work)
No family support. No assets.

Weekly Income
£71 per week JSA
£64.50 Housing Benefit (Full rent of £75 minus 14%)
Full Council Tax benefit

Weekly Outgoings
Difference in Rent £10.50
Water and Waste Water £5.01
Electricity £20
Bus ticket (for Jobcentre, food, interviews) £11.50
Child maintenance £5 (this is what a father on JSA is expected to pay)
This equals £52.01

Leaving for food etc. £18.99

This is a man who has been to uni and has worked all his life, never having claimed a penny in benefits.

What if it's the kids birthday...? I have to buy for him.

He could downsize to a 1 bedroom as that £10.50 a week saving would be a huge difference in such a small income but how would he pay the moving costs? In reality there is simply no way he could pay a man and a van to move things (and doesn't know anyone would could help)

The soles of his trainers have split and he can't afford new ones unless he goes without food for a week. Thankfully he's only been out of work 5months so is fine for clothes, household items etc.

If something breaks - the fridge, cooker etc. he would have to take out a budgeting loan from the DWP leaving him with even less income for that week.

 

[Dragonfly]

Dunno if anyone has mentioned this but what about single dads? Whose kids don't technically live with him but stay on weekends or whatever. Seems unfair for that kind of situation (as for many others of course)

That said when I first heard of this I thought no big deal, its basically the same here as in you get housing benefit according to a certain number of square metres per person but then again there is loads of one and two bedroom apartments over here so its not hard to find one the right size but I expect its not the same in the UK.

We have bedroom tax here for years. So one of my neighbours in a smaller flat only gets one bedroom and has his daughter come to stay,. I think she sleeps in same room as him or livingroom. But he only is entitled to one bedroom . Even if you have 2 beds you have an access to pay if your rent is over theirs and no ones rent is say £360 for a 2 bed place. No one. So here you have a lot more to pay.