Reply to: Bedroom Tax

[vetran]

I would change every Council tenancy to a 2 year fixed term with 2 months notice on Tenants side. Charge 1.5 times market rate and discount according to needs.

Those paying near market rate a percentage of rent goes to build up a deposit that they get back if they behave themselves. Cap that at say £5k can be removed so long stayers still pay some but don't get to take it away but can use it to buy older council housing so 10 years at £1200 a year gives you say £24,000 off selected council houses on sale. Those with a very heavy discount don't get the deposit saving, so its not £100 a month free for career doleys.

note one thing Thatcher did want to do (and is never credited with) was create more property owners breaking up slums as more become privately owned. The new snobbery of certain London areas is a good example of this.

Annual tax return / PAYE submitted to council as well. If your wage has risen or your need changes your rent rises (after suitable notice). Once it starts hitting market rates people will want to move out.

I suspect most tenants who got back in work / better situation would stay 1-2 years. Walk away with say £2400 in deposit and leave the houses in good condition.

You will never get rid of those in need but you need to manage them out of subsidised housing when their need ends.

[vetran]

Pretty much par for the course really, for a modern Politician

FTFY

[PEEL]

Also, when looking at social vs private housing, don't forget that those in social housing can make a case for where they want to live (e.g. family in that area). Why should that option not be open to those trying to reduce their burden on the state but still needing support? It's this inequality between social and private housing that the "Bedroom Tax" is starting to address.

I do agree with this in that the inequality in stupid. Reform is a must. What % of social housing folk do you reckon vote? I guess the ones on JSA certainly have the time to consider who to vote for.

[Ticktock]

This is completely fair. Either get the one bedroom rate for a two bed or relocate to a place where they have 1 beds for cheaper. It really irritates me that people think they have a right to benefit without having to make ANY sacrifice to get it. The above doesn't apply 100% across the board and I acknowledge there should be some review process, but the default should be the reduction in benefit.

Yep, the point point I was making that in the private sector I wouldn't be compensated for wanting to stay in a larger house, so why should people already paying lower rent for council properties?

As for relocating... it sounds easy to say "just do it", but ignores several factors. Relocating is not always an option for people, either because of economic reasons, social or other reasons, and moving to a cheaper area to live may mean moving to an area where there is less work, increasing the dependancy on the state.
Also, when looking at social vs private housing, don't forget that those in social housing can make a case for where they want to live (e.g. family in that area). Why should that option not be open to those trying to reduce their burden on the state but still needing support? It's this inequality between social and private housing that the "Bedroom Tax" is starting to address.

[PEEL]

They immediately told us that we could only claim the rate for a 1 bedroom. Of course, where we live there aren't any 1 bedroom places, apart from some flats which cost more than the house, but the amount offered was a standard rate for size of property so moving wouldn't have helped us.

This is completely fair. Either get the one bedroom rate for a two bed or relocate to a place where they have 1 beds for cheaper. It really irritates me that people think they have a right to benefit without having to make ANY sacrifice to get it. The above doesn't apply 100% across the board and I acknowledge there should be some review process, but the default should be the reduction in benefit.

[Ticktock]

A few of years ago I applied for Housing Benefit (just before I got my first contract work) after being out of work for about 6 months. I'd held off until we started to get fairly desperate.
My wife told them we were renting a two bedroom house (when I was telling her that we were in a 1 bedroom, which also had a room designated as "Other", for my office). They immediately told us that we could only claim the rate for a 1 bedroom. Of course, where we live there aren't any 1 bedroom places, apart from some flats which cost more than the house, but the amount offered was a standard rate for size of property so moving wouldn't have helped us.

Luckily started contracting before finalising the claim.

Meanwhile my brother and his family are in a council house (which they needed when they moved in). They cannot be forced to move, and when their kids grow up and move out will be allowed to keep the larger house, for which they pay roughly half of what I do in rent, no matter how much they earn.

[vetran]

Why are you on about private vs council houses? The vast majority of benefits claimants live in privately rented houses. The council gives them money to pay the rent.

I'd respond to your points but they seem to be predicated on the notion this is about council housing, whereas I'm sure "bedroom tax" applies across the board.

Mainly because the policy was to move those in social housing to smaller houses, privately rented are already forced to do that. To a certain extent privately rented is self regulating. The cost of rental reflects market rates and tenancies are short term so the worst excesses are curbed. The housing associations are better at supplying alternatives but still not as good supplying choice as private .

The recent April 2012 changes (into force April 2013) extend it to social housing and that is when a lot of the complaining started.

From April 2013 we have introduced new rules for the size of accommodation that Housing Benefit, and then Universal Credit, will cover for working age tenants renting in the social sector. This makes the rules consistent with those that apply to tenants renting in the private rented sector.

Council housing is where the real issue is, once in its almost impossible to dislodge you.

I would like to see a dynamic Council housing system that provides emergency care at a reasonable price & cost, not poor working people subsidising people on good wages.

Housing Benefit size criteria in the social rented sector - DWP

oh and SASGuru specifically asked about council properties.

[d000hg]

And even older houses are minimum 2-bed, all those stereotypical terraced streets. Outside towns, you simply don't see flats. And the NE is mainly not towns, but villages.

[eek]

The thing is that up north (where land is reasonably cheap) housing associations have been building larger houses because that is what people want.

Then suddenly the rules were changed and no suitable houses are available (or even planned in the next few years).

[amcdonald]

Caught a discussion around this on R4 - seems people are challenging cases where broom cupboards have been included as spare bedrooms and this has now been bought before the courts.
What constitutes a bedroom size wise is now one way to counter any assessment

If it's London as you can probably still get a mortgage on a broom cupboard, is it that crazy ?

[d000hg]

Why are you on about private vs council houses? The vast majority of benefits claimants live in privately rented houses. The council gives them money to pay the rent.

I'd respond to your points but they seem to be predicated on the notion this is about council housing, whereas I'm sure "bedroom tax" applies across the board.

[vetran]

One issue would be that even people on benefits might like to have a spare room. Or they might be trying to start a business from home in the spare room. Or a couple might split up. Or a couple might be expecting/planning a baby and want to get settled in a house rather than move as soon as they have the kid.

Ask your private landlord for a free room so you can start up a business.

Telling a respectable middle(ish) class family they have to leave their home of several years if they want benefits is harsh.

Its not THEIR HOME its rented and at a rate (normally) below market. Same would happen if they lost their job and couldn't afford a private rent. Getting a council house is akin to winning the pools in rent savings terms. it should be for respite / emergency situations only.

Or, in extreme cases a couple might lose a child (or one of the couple could die) and suddenly find their benefits cut... nice timing!

Yes a bit of compassion in application is required.

[d000hg]

It's not a bedroom tax, it's a reduction in their housing subsidy

It's not a subsidy it's a benefit.


But yes, you're right - however everyone likes calling things "taxes". For instance the Lottery is an "idiot tax".

[amcdonald]

It's not a bedroom tax, it's a reduction in their housing subsidy

[vetran]

Is that true? Are people being forced to vacate larger council house properties without being re-housed?
And when you say more expensive, not at market rates, certainly.

It's this whole entitlement culture that's wrong IMO.

the rent only gets re-assessed when you move or if they are significant events so if you have been in a council house for 20 years you could be paying £200 / month rent and earning £100k. AIUI You could still be eligible because you are on the list.

when you move they charge you a 'market rent' (ish -its lower).


I would link tax returns/ PAYE to Council properties and review those earning too much and up their rent so you gradually move people out.