Should the bedroom tax be scrapped? please vote

[estellyn]

This is the poll tax all over again. Me thinks there's going to be trouble ahead..

 

Being a cynic, I wonder if the timing of the bedroom tax was to take away focus from the fact that the new 'council tax reduction' does impose a poll tax style scenario where all working age people are expected to pay something towards council tax, regardless of how low their income is - I hear no one really talking about it, even though many more people are affected in every sector.

 

Because the bedroom tax is such a huge financial burden to those who have it imposed, it overshadows the other issue which is stealth poll tax.

[osdset]

Being a cynic, I wonder if the timing of the bedroom tax was to take away focus from the fact that the new 'council tax reduction' does impose a poll tax style scenario where all working age people are expected to pay something towards council tax, regardless of how low their income is - I hear no one really talking about it, even though many more people are affected in every sector.

 

Because the bedroom tax is such a huge financial burden to those who have it imposed, it overshadows the other issue which is stealth poll tax.

 

 

There could be something in that. Another aspect that gets overlooked is the cumulative effect of the bedroom tax and the CT shortfall.

 

A single person on JSA with one extra bedroom who is paying say £3 per week CT shortfall would be £17 per week worse off, that's easily someones food or utility budget for the week, I'm struggling on the basic ESA WRAG rate, the JSA rate of £71.70 would find me defaulting on bills, £54.70 would be a disaster to try and manage on.

[speedfreek]

Having just had my 1st taste of Council list bidding on single bed properties.

 

You apparently bid on Wednesday when the weeks properties are released to be told next Wednesday if you are on the short list.

 

I am until I get the court letter stating possession band H (lowest of the low) with 25 points well 35 since I got the extra 10 for the medical assessment. There were only 6-7 1 bed properties non were band H.

 

1000 bids on the estate by Clapham and 500-600 for all other properties.

 

The girl who showed me how to bid said we might get lucky!

 

Amazing also is apparently I've been on the housing list since Jan but never received the letter telling me so. With odds like the above it probably wouldn't of made a difference!

 

Apparently a band H only property does exist and does come up rarely I'm not holding my breath.

 

This is Lambeth we are talking about who are well known for selling everything social property wise and are now going who me guv?

[Nystagmite]

My experience has been similar, speedfreek. But my medial issues have been ignored. It's basically "you have somewhere to live". But they're failing to ignore everything that was written.

 

I can bid on any one bed property. But get pushed to the back of the queue and could be waiting years and years for my own place.

 

One thing I don't understand about this bedroom tax, is why are working age claimants made to pay it; but pensioners aren't? There are working age people out there who for reasons out of their control, are unable to work and are unlikely to ever be able to work.

[ashmk]

Missed the voting but for the record I would have voted No. I think it's a good idea.

[caro]

My experience has been similar, speedfreek. But my medial issues have been ignored. It's basically "you have somewhere to live". But they're failing to ignore everything that was written.

 

I can bid on any one bed property. But get pushed to the back of the queue and could be waiting years and years for my own place.

 

One thing I don't understand about this bedroom tax, is why are working age claimants made to pay it; but pensioners aren't? There are working age people out there who for reasons out of their control, are unable to work and are unlikely to ever be able to work.

 

There would be too much of an outcry if pensioners were affected and the Tories fear losing the vote of the increasing number of pensioners.

[estellyn]

Having just had my 1st taste of Council list bidding on single bed properties.

 

You apparently bid on Wednesday when the weeks properties are released to be told next Wednesday if you are on the short list.

 

I am until I get the court letter stating possession band H (lowest of the low) with 25 points well 35 since I got the extra 10 for the medical assessment. There were only 6-7 1 bed properties non were band H.

 

1000 bids on the estate by Clapham and 500-600 for all other properties.

 

The girl who showed me how to bid said we might get lucky!

 

Amazing also is apparently I've been on the housing list since Jan but never received the letter telling me so. With odds like the above it probably wouldn't of made a difference!

 

Apparently a band H only property does exist and does come up rarely I'm not holding my breath.

 

This is Lambeth we are talking about who are well known for selling everything social property wise and are now going who me guv?

 

Yes, apparently we've been on the 'list' for nearly 3 months now, and were never told we were accepted - our area has very low amounts of social housing, and they have a series of hurdles you have to jump over in order to be accepted for housing - then there is no banding or bidding, if a property comes available they think might be suitable then they tell us - but said 'don't hold your breath'.

 

In the meantime we're stuck in private rented that is not suitable for me medically and that we have to pay £200 a month above the LHA. Our circumstances and the need for adaptations mean other private rented isn't an option. But knowing that we're in competition with people suitably housed who need a one bed due to the bedroom tax, isn't great. It may be years before something comes available.

[bedofweeds]

.

 

On the personal point you raised, it's nothing to do with your daughter, but I suspect if the private sector tenants had done a better job of "kicking off" when LHA was introduced, many of these injustices would have been resolved and no-one would be in this situation now. Or maybe they were right - maybe there's nothing anyone could do about any of this, and we should all just throw up our hands and say "No point in fighting!" I couldn't live with myself if I did that, and I will take that view to my grave. I'll lose energy as I age, but not my conscience.

 

Thanks for your views. As it is now, private tenants for whatever reason, are stuck with this. Very few would have any sympathy for them if they were allowed to have a property with as many bedrooms as they wanted with no restriction on the amount of benefit paid to them.

 

My point is, why then should council/HA tenants enjoy those privileges of having more bedrooms than they need and at the same time expect full housing benefit regardless.

 

You can't fight a losing battle. The government only need to cite that private tenants readily accepted the situation, so how can they make a distinction between private/council.

My daughter needs a separate bedroom for her disabled son, so she is willing to pay the extra for it. Maybe that type of attitude should be carried forwards. If you want more bedrooms than the law allows, then you should pay for them out of your own money.

 

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

I believe that there should be an equalisation across the board with ALL tenant's having the same restrictions as to the number of bedrooms that they are allowed benefit for. Sorry, but that is my opinion.

Edited September 22, 2013 by bedofweeds

[estellyn]

Thanks for your views. As it is now, private tenants for whatever reason, are stuck with this. Very few would have any sympathy for them if they were allowed to have a property with as many bedrooms as they wanted with no restriction on the amount of benefit paid to them.

 

My point is, why then should council/HA tenants enjoy those privileges of having more bedrooms than they need and at the same time expect full housing benefit regardless.

 

You can't fight a losing battle. The government only need to cite that private tenants readily accepted the situation, so how can they make a distinction between private/council.

My daughter needs a separate bedroom for her disabled son, so she is willing to pay the extra for it. Maybe that type of attitude should be carried forwards. If you want more bedrooms than the law allows, then you should pay for them out of your own money.

 

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

I believe that there should be an equalisation across the board with ALL tenant's having the same restrictions as to the number of bedrooms that they are allowed benefit for. Sorry, but that is my opinion.

 

I'm one of those private tenants paying for 'extra bedrooms', we rented our house when we were both working full time with a good salary. Now with my medical and care needs, the house is unsuitable and we are unable to move, just like the social tenants. We also pay twice as much for our spare bedrooms than a social housing tenant would. But I have huge empathy for those in the social housing sector subject to bedroom tax, who would be willing to move but can't, due to no availability in the social rented sector.

 

Someone trapped by circumstances that have been foisted upon them deserves empathy and assistance, not your right wing ideas of what constitutes 'fairness'.

 

a fair system would be that everyone in social housing that is deemed too big for them on the day the policy is instigated is given a choice - go on the list to be rehoused or pay a subsidy for the additional bedrooms.

 

It is also important to point out that the system is discriminatory, in that people who don't claim housing benefit receive no financial penalty for under occupying social housing they would have to pay a whole lot more for in the private rented sector, and probably couldn't afford. This is how you know it isn't about fairness, or saving money, but about a warped ideology trying to force people out of secure social housing and into the private rented sector where they can line the pockets of private landlords with even higher housing benefit payments than were being paid for in the under occupied social housing. It's also about trying to use a big scary financial stick to beat people with in an attempt to get them into jobs that either aren't there, or the person cannot do (in the case of the sick, disabled and carers).

 

A result of typical upper and middle class moralising about the perceived unfairness of needing to ensure that people have homes and can heat them and feed themselves, and that they can't just put them all in some sort of big institution where they can be forced to work for the meagre offerings they are given, or until they die of course - now where have I heard of places like that?

[stu007]

Hi

 

I can see your point to a certain extent but:

 

1. The Government has reduced the funding for new build properties in the Social Housing Sector year on year with build costs increasing.

2. The Governments emphasis in the Social Housing Sector for years has been family orientated thus family properties built.

3. There is a mass shortage of 1 bed properties in the Social Housing Sector due to the Government policy on families.

4. Those in Social Housing that pay full rent but are under occupying the property will not be affected by the Governments policy.

5. Due to the 1 bed property shortage this is forcing those in the Social Housing Sector into the Private Sector so who actually gains.

[antone]

Thanks for your views. As it is now, private tenants for whatever reason, are stuck with this. Very few would have any sympathy for them if they were allowed to have a property with as many bedrooms as they wanted with no restriction on the amount of benefit paid to them.

 

My point is, why then should council/HA tenants enjoy those privileges of having more bedrooms than they need and at the same time expect full housing benefit regardless.

 

You can't fight a losing battle. The government only need to cite that private tenants readily accepted the situation, so how can they make a distinction between private/council.

My daughter needs a separate bedroom for her disabled son, so she is willing to pay the extra for it. Maybe that type of attitude should be carried forwards. If you want more bedrooms than the law allows, then you should pay for them out of your own money.

 

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

I believe that there should be an equalisation across the board with ALL tenant's having the same restrictions as to the number of bedrooms that they are allowed benefit for. Sorry, but that is my opinion.

 

No need to apologise for having an opinion that disagrees with mine. The world would not function if everyone thought the way I do, although I contend that it also would not function if no-one did.

 

But let's look at a couple of points:

 

1) "Private tenants readily accepted the situation"

 

Well, kinda. They weren't suddenly stripped of their ability to pay their rent. When LHA was introduced, it only applied to new claims. Nobody suddenly and capriciously got £100 per month yanked from their HB.

 

2) "Why should social sector tenants enjoy these privileges?"

 

In principle, they should not. My problem with this depraved piece of legislation is not that I believe social tenants should have as big a house as they want. It is that there are not smaller properties available for them. This is why I'd accept the idea (as suggested by Estellyn) that they should agree to be placed on the waiting list for a smaller property or face a penalty.

 

But this is cynical. To the extent that social sector tenants do actually move, they'll move to the private sector. Where they'll claim LHA. Which will almost always be more than the HB they were getting in their council house. So in effect, we move the poor people into more expensive houses and pay their higher rents out of government funds, vacating the cheaper houses for those who are better off and don't need government funds. I remain unconvinced that this is sensible public policy.

 

3) "You can't fight a losing battle"

 

In the end, whether or not you fight has a bearing on whether or not you win the battle. A housecat cornered by a German Shepard dog has little chance, but will still fight. Because what's the alternative? You go creeping to your cross.

[osdset]

My local authority (Newham)

 

Total social housing stock 17,535

Total 1 bedroom social housing properties 4.913

Households effected by the bedroom tax 2,375

Households on the waiting list for social housing 8,990

Available one bedroom social housing properties 47

Children in households effected by the bedroom tax 146

Households claiming a disability benefit effected by the bedroom tax 28

Source https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/163190/response/414475/attach/3/RESPONSE%20E15636.pdf

 

So we have 2,328 households who either have to meet the shortfall or face eviction.

Newham LA does not support a no eviction policy, some of these households will inevitably end up homeless, some may have kids, some might be disabled.

That's why I voted yes to scrap the tax, the figures speak for themselves.

Edited September 23, 2013 by osdset

[bcham]

vote labor they will scrap it,

[Nystagmite]

Many of these people in houses that are too big for them have adult children. When they moved in, the children had the now spare bedrooms.

[bedofweeds]

vote labor they will scrap it,

 

Errr yeah! And they are considering bringing back our old friend Darling to become the Chancellor of the Exchequer!!

 

Wasn't he involved in leaving the note on the desk saying that all of the money has gone?

[mr_mastiff]

Having watched BBC Hardtalk I am not convinced that labour will keep there word on any Issue. The shadow minister was evasive and would not commit.

[bedofweeds]

. To the extent that social sector tenants do actually move, they'll move to the private sector. Where they'll claim LHA. Which will almost always be more than the HB they were getting in their council house. So in effect, we move the poor people into more expensive houses and pay their higher rents out of government funds.

 

But would not this help the families that need a larger house?

 

I don't think that it is right that couples with children that have flown the nest are allowed to remain in their 3/4 bed council/HA property. They should move out to a 1 bed private let (which will of course cost more in benefit) but the bigger picture is that it will release a whole swathe of 'family' homes that are desperately needed. It can't be right that families with 3/4/5 children are having to live in a 2 bed property simply because the 'old couple up the road' living in a 3 bed semi are blocking them.

 

Honestly I don't think that there is a way out of this. The government will have to standardise both types of letting and only pay for the bedrooms that the law deems that are needed.

[osdset]

Whether Labour plan to scrap the tax or not is academic, so is speculation on who will be in a Labour cabinet should they win in two years time. The ConDems are running the country at the moment and the bedroom tax is an issue for today.

Speculating on Miliband's proposals diverts attention away from the issue.

[Nystagmite]

But where are these smaller houses? That's the problem. More people want them than there are smaller houses.

[wobbly]

I agree with you Nystagmite,the one bedroom housing is not available and the government know it,just another way to put the boot in.

[Nystagmite]

I've been told I can expect to wait 10 years to get a one bed flat. I am in the lowest band.

[ee-bee]

I felt I just had to share my situation,I do not believe this is about freeing up the large family homes,I applied to downsize approx. 12 months before the bedroom tax was bought in as I am struggling to maintain the 3 bed house I share with my 21 year old daughter,I was given no points at all, (so much for wanting family houses)when the bedroom tax was introduced I was given 130points,apparently the standard amount of points given to people down sizing.The problem is every property I bid on had about 200 bidders and guess what I was about number 180 on the list,I don't stand a chance of getting a 2 bedroom .as far as I`m concerned this is just another way of taking money off people,They should not have introduced this tax if they haven't got the properties for people to move into,

[lenny100]

I know for a fact the up here in east durham there are no avalable 1 or even two bed houseing from east durham homes "our local houseing people who run the all the houseing stock around here", and the stock they have are proatised for the over 60s as they were built as warden controled areas way back in the 1950s, in fact there has been NO local athority house built since the early 1970s when they finished building peterlee new town.

There is at the moment over a 17 year wait for any house under 2 bedrooms that are not in warden controled areas so were are people to move to

Most of the private sector is ex mineworkers houseing that should have been knocked down years ago, but they were all bought up streets at a time by what we around here call the bradford landlords. and they regulay are up infront of the local houseing cheifs about the state of the homes, in the ex pit villages, but they factor the fines into their rents which run around £120 per week for a two up and two down house, and evict people who do complan as they only do very short time lettings, and if your face dosnt fit then you are not offerd a extesion!

[stu007]

Just some of my thoughts on this:

 

 

— It aims to reduce Housing Benefit spending - This will result in higher spending as tenants are forced to move from larger social rented properties that are cheaper to move to smaller properties in the Private Sector that are more expensive therefore costing the taxpayer more.

 

— People that can’t readily downsize as there isn’t the housing supply of smaller/alternative properties for them to move into are then penalised by a 14% / 25% HB reduction.

 

— This will drive up Rent Arrears in Social Housing Sector thus reducing the revenues available to maintain existing Social Housing Stock and affect their Borrowing.

 

— This will increase the cost of Rent Collection which has to be paid from the Rental Income the Social Housing Sector Landlord receives.

 

— This will undermine the viability of Rural Communities – Trying to move to a smaller property/private rented property within the Rural Communities may be impossible due to lack of availability of properties forcing those individuals to move hundreds of miles from their communities.

 

— Discretionary Housing Payment Funding to Local Authorities - Is underfunded and is applied inconsistently across all Local Authorities in the UK and is only a temporary measure for those that have applied for the payment.

 

— It takes no account of the costs of moving from one property to another where those households affected may already have limited resources. Therefore this could force them into the doorstep lender/payday lender scenario.

 

— If children are within the household affected then they may have to move schools it may then impact those children emotionally, their development and education.

 

— With even more reduced funding by the Government for the Social Housing Sector there will be less house building and it may be years if ever to see an adequate supply of social housing stock to meet the needs placed on the social housing sector.

 

— There is not sufficient Social Housing Stock at present to meet the needs demanded of the Social Housing Sector never mind future demand on that sector.

 

— Homlessness is going to increase which will in turn cost the taxpayer.

 

— Disabled people even with adapted properties are being forced to move to smaller properties which in turn will have to be adapted at more cost to the taxpayer.

[Nystagmite]

— Disabled people even with adapted properties are being forced to move to smaller properties which in turn will have to be adapted at more cost to the taxpayer.

 

I'm sure someone on here said that if they moved from their adapted house, (for which they pay bedroom tax on) they'd have to pay back some of the disabled facilities grant because it was adapted within a certain amount of years.