Jump to content



Timetable for the next month of government induced horrors


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2853 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Estellyn. That is exactly the point that I am trying to make. There are eleven houses on our street which have one or two spare rooms. One of them will be hit by the 'bedroom tax', four of them are pensioners who are exempt and the rest pay their rent. So out of the eleven you might force one, via the 'bedroom tax' to downsize.

 

This does not enforce the picture that the ConDem' s want to free up social housing. They just want to persecute the benefit claimant. The other households in the above would in all likelihood not be able to afford to rent similar properties in the private sector.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The housing stock in the part of Newham (a suburb of East London) I live in comprises mainly very large Victorian houses, the area was quite well to do back in the day.

Apart from properties that were converted into flats (like mine) all are at least three bedroom, many are four to five bedroom.

 

Newham council has had a clampdown on converting houses into flats for some years, it's difficult to get planning now for this type of alteration, the upshot is there is very little in the way of one bedroom accommodation to be had across the borough apart from a smattering of new build apartments but most of these are for sale. Anyone who cannot meet the burden of the bedroom tax will be in significant trouble, there just isn't anywhere for them to move to.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would like to see him try living on £51 a week too. But it has to be for a year or so for him to see how difficult it is.

 

In social housing adequate for the size of his family.

Link to post
Share on other sites

is 51 quid a week adequate. he pays that on his daily breakfast bill , or a bottle of plonk at lunch, no sorry we pay for that through his expenses.

 

the quickest way IDS can lose 51 pounds is around his waist

Link to post
Share on other sites

the quickest way IDS can lose 51 pounds is around his waist

Or maybe just from around his head

Awop-Bop-A-Loo-Mop-Alop-Bam-Boom. ~ Little Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Estellyn. That is exactly the point that I am trying to make. There are eleven houses on our street which have one or two spare rooms. One of them will be hit by the 'bedroom tax', four of them are pensioners who are exempt and the rest pay their rent. So out of the eleven you might force one, via the 'bedroom tax' to downsize.

 

This does not enforce the picture that the ConDem' s want to free up social housing. They just want to persecute the benefit claimant. The other households in the above would in all likelihood not be able to afford to rent similar properties in the private sector.

 

Indeed it would be better to bring back the rule that you can only have social housing of a size that is appropriate to your needs. As soon as you had spare bedrooms, you used to have to move somewhere smaller. But there are several reasons why this won't happen - it would hit potential Tory voters, it doesn't fit the striver vs skiver rhetoric as it would hit working households equally, and most importantly, there isn't enough housing stock of the right size to make it work (1 bed properties).

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed it would be better to bring back the rule that you can only have social housing of a size that is appropriate to your needs. As soon as you had spare bedrooms, you used to have to move somewhere smaller. But there are several reasons why this won't happen - it would hit potential Tory voters, it doesn't fit the striver vs skiver rhetoric as it would hit working households equally, and most importantly, there isn't enough housing stock of the right size to make it work (1 bed properties).

Hi estellyn,

I'm not looking for row but your post - “...As soon as you had spare bedrooms, you used to have to move to somewhere smaller...”

When was this? Are you talking about council housing or housing associations? I'm not a young man by any means and I've never heard of this.

I think, having to move out of an area because of home size, ignores the facts that people may lose contact with family, friends and community ties/support, that have been built up over decades. It is totally abhorrent to me.

I can't remember any government that proposed this. Under Thatcher, I do remember a plan to force young people to move out of their LA every three months. This apparently was meant to encourage them to find work. After a lot of public outrage and the suicide of a young man the plan was quietly dropped.

I think this government has gone way beyond anything Thatcher had the nerve to do.

Today people are being treated like cattle in a program, (as someone else said) worthy of Stalin himself. I don't know how we have got into to this state.

Maybe people used to matter, not so these days.

My best

pitcher

Edited by pitcher

Awop-Bop-A-Loo-Mop-Alop-Bam-Boom. ~ Little Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi estellyn,

I'm not looking for row but your post - “As soon as you had spare bedrooms, you used to have to move to somewhere smaller”

When was this? Are you talking about council housing or housing associations? I'm not a young man by any means and I've never heard of this.

I think, having to move out of an area because of home size, ignores the facts that people may lose contact with family, friends and community ties/support, that have been built up over decades. It is totally abhorrent to me.

I can't remember any government that proposed this. Under Thatcher, I do remember a plan to force young people to move out of their LA every three months. This apparently was meant to encourage them to find work. After a lot of public outrage and the suicide of a young man the plan was quietly dropped.

I think this government has gone way beyond anything Thatcher had the nerve to do.

Today people are being treated like cattle in a program, (as someone else said) worthy of Stalin himself. I don't know how we have got into to this state.

Maybe people used to matter, not so these days.

My best

pitcher

 

This was late 70's, early 80's and council housing. My grandparents' kids had moved out (all but one) and they were required to move from a 4 bed to a two bed. Of course there was tonnes of social housing and when they did have to move, it was literally around the corner. It simply isn't feasible now, there isn't the housing stock. I don't think moving someone around the corner is abhorrent, but I agree that moving people out of the area is unacceptable. Much care was taken back then to ensure that people weren't moved out of the immediate area.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's what is so inherently unfair in our new fangled bedroom tax system. Today, assuming your grandparents were pensioners, they wouldn't have to move out at all.

To my mind, either pensioners are treated the same as everyone else, or those who are no longer able to work due to disability or chronic illness are treated as pensioners. Grrr ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
This was late 70's, early 80's and council housing. My grandparents' kids had moved out (all but one) and they were required to move from a 4 bed to a two bed. Of course there was tonnes of social housing and when they did have to move, it was literally around the corner. It simply isn't feasible now, there isn't the housing stock. I don't think moving someone around the corner is abhorrent, but I agree that moving people out of the area is unacceptable. Much care was taken back then to ensure that people weren't moved out of the immediate area.

Hi estellyn,

Thank you for your response. I've lived in council housing for most of my life and have never heard of having to move, maybe it was down to LA's to set their own rules at that time.

Of course it's not abhorrent to move someone around the corner but it may have cost in terms of new carpets, furniture etc.

As you said, there was tonnes of social housing stock at the time and the problem we face now is the complete reverse. I not being party political at all but since the eighties no government has addressed this issue. The answer is to build more social housing and not to move people around like cattle.

Just read RaeUK's post. I think by not hitting the pensioners, the government thinks they come across as fair and caring or maybe they just fear the grey vote. I agree with your post Rae but I think your mind and the governments are poles apart. Grrr.

My best

pitcher

Awop-Bop-A-Loo-Mop-Alop-Bam-Boom. ~ Little Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... I think by not hitting the pensioners, the government thinks they come across as fair and caring or maybe they just fear the grey vote...

 

I think it's both. The grey vote is the largest and most consistent voting bloc and there is an inherent emotive attached to them.

I'm now in the position of paying nearly £60 a month more than my elderly next door neighbour for identical properties. I don't begrudge her at all, I blame the Government.

I did read that the reason the Government chose to exempt pensioners was because 'they couldn't increase their income through work'. I really really wish I could find that quote again so I can, proverbially, shove it up my MP's derriere. The basis being that in that case you must exempt all who can never improve their income through work.

The simple answer would be to exempt those in receipt of IR ESA Support Group.

Rae.

 

EDIT: Interestingly, the amount charged for a spare room seems to be more than the rent differential. One example being : In Weymouth, a two-bedroomed Synergy property is rented at an average of £87.59 per week, with a three-bedroom averaging £94.49 per week ...

Edited by RaeUK
Link to post
Share on other sites

They have always moved people out of social housing when they have spare rooms in Jersey. Easier to manage though due to the country being small, although in some ways I would have thought it was harder.

But my aunt wasn't having that, she was having to leave a 2 bed flat there that she had bought 2 sons up in, luckily she had saved some money & went & bought a flat in Bulgaria 2 or 3 yrs ago. That wasn't all it's cracked up to be & she is now desperate to move over here though where her youngest son lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I did read that the reason the Government chose to exempt pensioners was because 'they couldn't increase their income through work'.

 

Neither can disabled people or carers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, Nystagmite. I wish I'd bookmarked that comment. I'm 99% certain it was somewhere on my local authorities website but I can't find it now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly, Nystagmite. I wish I'd bookmarked that comment. I'm 99% certain it was somewhere on my local authorities website but I can't find it now.

 

I expect that's because they have removed it for obvious reasons like knowing exactly what people will say to it lol

As I said on Martin Lewises post on FB the other day, even if people increase their working hours by a couple of hours, 65p in every pound of it will be taken off them straight away anyway, bit of a treadmill? How many hours extra would you have to find to cover 14 quid rent increase? I stopped counting when I got to 5 extra hours to actually earn £1.50 (after they took the 65p in every pound) I know it wont work exactly like that.

But... as Martin said, 35p extra towards rent is still good considering you're earning the money instead of claiming it in benefits.

A millionaire can say that though. Not sure a single parent with a couple of same gender kids, one being only about 8 months old living in a 3 bed would say the same..

Link to post
Share on other sites
I expect that's because they have removed it for obvious reasons like knowing exactly what people will say to it lol...

In the back of my mind, I have a sneaking suspicion you are right ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...