Next Tory leader

[WelshBluebird]

I do agree with this; in my view if someone puts in an application to move to a smaller property, it should cease to apply as soon as the application is made, not only once the move has taken place.

But that would defeat the point - because it was never intended to be a humane way of helping allocate council properties fairly. It was intended to financially punish the poor. As many recent Tory policies have been designed to do.

 

[DarloRich]

It doesn't look or smell like anything of the sort.

For one, if it was a "bedroom tax" it would be payable by all property occupiers, it isn't.

it is interesting you arent able to acknowledge the experiences of the victims. It feels like a tax to them. Are their views unimportant? But then when they can be moved around the country on a whim why bother thinking about them?

Oh, behave. There are problems with the implementation but the idea is solid - if you're on benefits you get paid for what you NEED, so other people can also be afforded to be paid for what they too NEED.

As always with Tories their plans seem to be enacted in the most cack handed manner possible and in such a way as to make things as hard as possible for the people impacted. There had to be a battle to get them to acknowledge that people with caring responsibilities or those with complex medical issues might need more space. They even had to be persuaded not to levy the charge on families with serving soldiers! So much for the covenant. They don't care about those below them in the chain. Pure and simple. Their view of need is that 2 children of the same sex under 16 or 2 children of either sex under 10 share a room. Their view of need was ( until the government lost a court case) that two children under 10 share a room regardless of health or disability. There was a hard fight to have the words: "unless it is inappropriate for them to share a room because of disability" added to the rules! They will give an allowance for foster care. For one room - regardless of the number of children taken in! They wont even give an allowance for people using a bedroom as a sanctuary room from domestic violence or storing medical equipment. Nice.

These rules don't hit the scroungers. They hit the most vulnerable the hardest but then these are the easiest targets.

 

[AlterEgo]

Vehicle Excise Duty is a then a tax you can completely avoid based on what you have. Much like "Bedroom Tax".

You can choose whether or not to have a car.

Your comparison implies that people have a choice about where they live, even if it’s 100 miles away, to avoid the “bedroom tax”.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Whether or not the policy known widely as the "Bedroom Tax" is actually a tax or not is not really the issue. The issue is (a) what was the purpose of the policy; (b) does it achieve that purpose; and (c) what are the consequences for those affected.

We've had a number of anecdotal accounts of the effects of the policy accounted in this thread which outline some of those effects. It hasn't escaped my notice that some of those apparently in support of the policy have outlined it as being that the state will provide assistance for the home required rather than the home desired. The use of the term desired is problematic because it plays into the "scrounger" narrative. It also doesn't reflect the fact that the policy is applied retroactively, meaning those already in a home are suddenly plunged into financial insecurity. The way the policy has been applied also affects people who need an extra room for medical reasons such as providing space for carers who visit.

Despite myself being (I assume) very much on the left of the majority on this forum, I have some sympathy with the fundamentals of the policy if we take it at face-value. My issues with it are in the implementation which has been so negative on the most vulnerable that one has to wonder if those things are not a bug but a feature.

 

[fowler9]

You can choose whether or not to have a car.

Your comparison implies that people have a choice about where they live, even if it’s 100 miles away, to avoid the “bedroom tax”.

Mate I think we have got mixed up here. I don't agree with the "Bedroom Tax", I have no problem at all with vehicle excise duty and take issue with people calling it "Road Tax". I do understand why some would say Bedroom Tax is not a tax, I don't however agree that someone should suddenly agree to be moved to god knows where if they suddenly don't need a 2 bed flat. Social/Council housing was never meant to be emergency housing. That said in this day and age being stuck in a B&B doesn't seem to be viewed as emergency housing either, it is just the norm for many.

 

[AlterEgo]

Mate I think we have got mixed up here. I don't agree with the "Bedroom Tax", I have no problem at all with vehicle excise duty and take issue with people calling it "Road Tax".

Ah right, I didn’t realise you were only taking issue with the name.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Vehicle Excise Duty is a then a tax you can completely avoid based on what you have. Much like "Bedroom Tax".

You can't "avoid bedroom tax" because it is not a tax!

You receive housing benefit based on need.

 

[fowler9]

You can't "avoid bedroom tax" because it is not a tax!

You receive housing benefit based on need.

Blimey mate, I just said that I understand that. Road tax doesn't exist either.

 

[Bromley boy]

Goodness me, a man on loan from the 18th century as leader of a major political party.

Indeed.

Meanwhile the 1970s just called and asked for the leader of the labour party back.

Is it any wonder people are disenfranchised with politics in this county?!

That's because you live in the south and I come from the north east. Life is easy down south

A land where 3 bed houses cost less than £200k sounds like the land of milk and honey to me . I think the “grim up north thing” is a bit of a myth. The standard of living is a lot higher up north for a given salary. I think the difference of opinion may be partly due to the housing situation down south. It’s difficult for those not from the south east to comprehend just how difficult it is for people in London to get housing.

Zero rate SDLT on first time buyers upto £300k? 0% on all transactions upto £125k? That will move the vast majority of buyers out of the tax envelope where I come from. You also pay 2% on the difference between £125k & £250k rather than 2% on the lot as in the past. That seems like a generous back hander in the grand scheme of things.

Yes but unfortunately that will be largely irrelevant for first time buyers in much of the south east and all of Greater London. £125k wouldn’t buy anything - maybe a retirement flat or a parking space - £300k is a one bed /possibly tiny two bed flat in many parts.

We shall agree to disagree. There is a housing shortage in this country regardless of your level of status. I am not suggesting anyone in their own home be moved but that shortage is is worth acknowledging.

Yes there is a housing shortage. It’s not the fault of private owners that successive governments have pursued right to buy without replacing the housing stock.

The medium/Long term solution can only be to build more houses. The short term solution may be to make budgets go further by housing social tenants in private accommodation cheaper areas of the country.

they should have security of tenure like any other tennant.

Yes, while they need the property they should have security of tenure. But they aren’t like any other tenant - while they are receiving subsidised housing they are effectively receiving a benefit. Their level of need is something that should be reviewed in my view - not the current situation where it appears if you are granted social housing you have it for life.

I agree - as long as suitable housing is available locally and someone from, say, Newcastle, isnt expected to move to Penzance. That is the key point for me: Suitable local housing. You should not be punished by a government (who detest your very existence) you but cant provide you with a home to meet up with their desires!

I also find it interesting that Tories are happy to treat council house scum like chattels and move them at a whim.

But this is the point I think you’re overlooking. In the London area if you have a council flat or house, you are not a victim in any way shape or form. You are in a very, very privileged position compared to many private renters. For many people living in their own rented property is unaffordable, let alone buying, and they are stuck living with their parents or in grotty house shares into their 30s.

Newcastle to Penzance is an extreme example but in principle people may have to consider moving yes. London to Birmingham might be reasonable?
It may sound a little hard but I’m afraid there’s an element of “beggars can’t be choosers” here. If you’re genuinely in need of council housing, and fortunate to be provided it, you shouldn’t really quibble if it’s not in the locale you’d like. As we discussed earlier there are many private renters and owners who have to move around the country for work or to get housing that fits their budget.

Local authorities are able to stretch their budgets further and house more people by asking some people to live in cheaper areas of the country.

I would take the increased money and use it to fund accommodation somewhere else in the borough. I would rather the tax payer kept the money rather than give it to a private landlord. I thought you would be all for clawing back money from benefit spongers

I’m assuming here that people able to pay market rent are working - even if they are claiming housing benefit (which is limited to a property suitable for their needs as I understand it), no reason they can’t rent in the private sector.

Social housing should be kept for those with long term health needs or disabilities preventing them from working, in my view.

there isnt enough accommodation to go round - that breaks the system immediately . Do you agree it is unfair to punish someone when you cant offer them the solution?

I simply don’t think someone who is offered subsidised accommodation is being “punished” at all. In a great many countries around the world social housing is an unknown concept. I do think there is something of a sense of entitlement in this country.

it is their house in exactly the same way that the house rented privately is the the house of the person renting it. The tenant has security of tenure. I am accused up thread of wanting to move to property confiscation. Moving one set of tenants on a whim could e seen as the slippery slope to breaking security of tenure for private renters.

Again - if you’re benefiting from a scarce resource (a LA’s housing budget) you shouldn’t complain if you’re asked to move elsewhere, especially if this then helps the LA get more bang for the buck and house more needy overall.

They will be on lease. There are scutters round here driving Range Rovers and there is no way they can afford them. They aren't council tenants though. Everyone seems to buy a car on PCP these days - that's the next sub prime mortgage finance problem btw.

How much does it cost to lease a £40k car? £4-500 per month? That’s a fair chunk of change for most.

No issue with people spaffing their money on fancy cars, so long as it is their money! I do have an issue with them benefiting from taxpayer subsidised rents to enable them to enjoy a lifestyle in excess of someone on the same income in the private sector - that is simply wrong.

Especially when they are entitled to that benefit for life, regardless of their changing circumstances, and even have the ability to leave it to their children. Where is the incentive for people in this position to try to better themselves?

the goal of the Conservative Party since time began - inverse wealth envy

It’s not about inverse wealth envy. It’s about wanting a society where people can see that hard work pays off and which incentivises them to improve their lot in life, while also supporting those who cannot do so.

I totally agree a big part of that is dealing with the housing shortage, particularly in the south east.

Of course housing should be provided for those who need it, while they need it. Other than in a minority of cases it should never be a long term solution or lifestyle choice.

 

[fowler9]

Yes there is a housing shortage. It’s not the fault of private owners that successive governments have pursued right to buy without replacing the housing stock.

Yes, while they need the property they should have security of tenure. But they aren’t like any other tenant - while they are receiving subsidised housing they are effectively receiving a benefit.

I simply don’t think someone who is offered subsidised accommodation is being “punished” at all. In a great many countries around the world social housing is an unknown concept. I do think there is something of a sense of entitlement in this country.

1) A large amount of the electorate voted for the government which didn't replace the social housing stock, Labour and Tory. We live in a democracy. It is the fault of private home owners.

2) Social Housing was never set up to be some kind of emergency housing scheme. If you don't like it vote for a government which will ensure wage rises in line with house price rises.

3) It is shocking that we live in a country where people need to claim benefits to house their family when they are working. Are you envious of countries that won't even give their people that?

 

[Bromley boy]

1) A large amount of the electorate voted for the government which didn't replace the social housing stock, Labour and Tory. We live in a democracy. It is the fault of private home owners.

What is the fault of private home owners?

The vast majority of the electorate do not live in social housing and will never have the opportunity to do so. It's not really on their radar.

2) Social Housing was never set up to be some kind of emergency housing scheme. If you don't like it vote for a government which will ensure wage rises in line with house price rises.

What was it set up for then? It's essentially no longer open to new entrants. There's s two tier system of the haves and the have nots.

It's about time it was made fit for purpose.

3) It is shocking that we live in a country where people need to claim benefits to house their family when they are working. Are you envious of countries that won't even give their people that?

The point I'm making is that people should stop to consider that such benefits and social housing are not available in a great many places around the world (and indeed are no longer available to many in the uk)!

 

[Tetchytyke]

In a great many countries around the world social housing is an unknown concept. I do think there is something of a sense of entitlement in this country.

Is it? Is it really?

Elsewhere in Europe, there is less need for social housing as private tenants enjoy security of tenure that we can only dream of. Elsewhere in the world? Even in the US you get the projects.

I don't agree with the idea that social housing should be housing of last resort. That way lies ghettoisation and decrepitude that would make Grenfell look like a tea party.

And, in any case, how do we define "social housing" these days? Part-ownership schemes usually involve RSLs, are they social housing?

The housing market in this country is a mess. But nobody will fix it because a) people will be in severe negative equity if they do and b) every bozo with a buy to let mortgage thinks he's some sort of property impresario. Upset the bozos and the gullible and you'll lose a sackload of votes.

And that's before we consider that most of the London hyper-inflation is caused by every gangster from Moscow to Muscat hiding their dirty money here. Dirty money that's *very* profitable indeed for the likes of HSBC.

 

[fowler9]

What is the fault of private home owners?

The vast majority of the electorate do not live in social housing and will never have the opportunity to do so. It's not really on their radar.

What was it set up for then? It's essentially no longer open to new entrants. There's s two tier system of the haves and the have nots.

It's about time it was made fit for purpose.

The point I'm making is that people should stop to consider that such benefits and social housing are not available in a great many places around the world (and indeed are no longer available to many in the uk)!

1) You said it isn't the fault of private home owners that successive governments didn't replace the housing stock, yes it is if they voted for governments that didn't replace the housing stock.

2) Social housing was to provide housing for the work force, not an investment for a few people.

3) In one of the richest economies in the world why should people need to claim benefits to put a roof over their families head when they work because of increasing house prices and stagnant wages. It is sickening.

 

[DarloRich]

Indeed.

Meanwhile the 1970s just called and asked for the leader of the labour party back.

Is it any wonder people are disenfranchised with politics in this county?!

drop him back there if you get a chance please! Then we can get an actual leader in and chuck all the trots out. Again. Then we can on with actually trying to win an election!

A land where 3 bed houses cost less than £200k sounds like the land of milk and honey to me . I think the “grim up north thing” is a bit of a myth and I think the difference of opinion may be partly due to the housing situation down south. It’s difficult to comprehend just how difficult it is for people in London to get housing.

Agreed - the market down south is bonkers. MK is bad enough so god knows how anyone manages in London. It is fine at home if you have work. Lots don't sadly. Plus there aren't many organic sushi and latte bars

I simply don’t think someone who is offered subsidised accommodation is being “punished” at all. In a great many countries around the world social housing is an unknown concept. I do think there is something of a sense of entitlement in this country.

I would say you are being punished if you are happy to move but no accommodation is available within a reasonable distance and you are still taxed 14 or 25% of your benefit. That doesn't seem right. However you are right: decent housing for all should be an entitlement for all in a rich country like ours. That it isnt is a scandal.

The simple fact is we don't build enough houses. That's done on purpose to keep the prices up and earn second home owners their premium imo.

As for social housing we have a very different view on housing to many countries. We are pushed towards ownership as the only acceptable option and if you rent you are a waster and a loser ( see Thatchers views on bus users ). Long term renting is much more common, much cheaper and much more secure in Europe and treated as normal

Again - if you’re benefiting from a scarce resource (a LA’s housing budget) you shouldn’t complain if you’re asked to move elsewhere, especially if this then helps the LA get more bang for the buck and house more needy overall.

it has to be reasonable, surely. If you have no support network in your new location you will need to take more from the state. That's something the Tories miss, I think on purpose. They might be free to move around the country as they can afford the travel to see family or attend interviews. Many cant, many don't have resources or the confidence. The problem with many Tory politicians is they have no point of reference with people on benefits. They know such things exist but not the reality of benefit dependency.

Yes, while they need the property they should have security of tenure. But they aren’t like any other tenant - while they are receiving subsidised housing they are effectively receiving a benefit. Their level of need is something that should be reviewed in my view - not the current situation where it appears if you are granted social housing you have it for life.

it is reviewed all the time however it is incumbent on the claimant to inform the authorities of any change in circumstances. People have their HB stopped on a regular basis Any over payments should be clawed back via any other benefits or via a recovery order. The issue is moving people into work so they don't need HB anymore. In many areas where people rely on HB that work isnt available and/or educational performance is low. It is also worth noting the whole point of the social/council housing system is to move people to owner occupier via right to buy.

Social housing should be provided for those who need it, while they need it. Other than in a minority of cases it should never be a long term solution or lifestyle choice.

Where is the incentive for people in this position to try to better themselves?

Agreed about social housing being provided by way of need. However we don't have the houses to meet that need even with the bedroom tax ( which hasn't worked in either moving people and freeing up houses OR reducing the costs of HB by the level suggested)

BTW I know several people on benefits and I don't think any of them really want to be on benefits but there needs to be secure jobs that pay well and are respected in the community as an alternative. The big issue is that jobs are insecure and low waged. That's something that needs to be tackled. Sadly the Tories don't seem bothered about fixing the problems

 

[Bromley boy]

Elsewhere in Europe, there is less need for social housing as private tenants enjoy security of tenure that we can only dream of. Elsewhere in the world? Even in the US you get the projects.

Certainly in Eastern Europe the situation is rather less generous than in the uk. I'll admit I don't know the exact situation in different countries but based on anecdotal evidence from people from abroad, the uk system is pretty generous (if you can get into the system, a big if). I'm not privy to how you get onto a "project" in the states but there have been quite a few shocking stories over the years about people in the US living in tents/in cars etc. suggesting it isn't easy.

I'm not saying that's in any way good, or what I would want here, but sometimes I think we are too far the other way in the UK and people are very quick to complain without considering what they do have.

I don't agree with the idea that social housing should be housing of last resort. That way lies ghettoisation and decrepitude that would make Grenfell look like a tea party.

Re. your first comment what do you think it should be used for? The original utopian idea that it was available to everyone who wanted it no longer works for obvious reasons, especially in the south east.

Would it lead to ghettoisation or would it be way to make it more effective and fit for purpose - i.e. better able to help those in need. Grenfell sadly revealed a lot of abuse by social tenants subletting flats and profiteering from the needy.

The system as it stands clearly isn't working...

 

[Bromley boy]

Agreed - the market down south is bonkers. MK is bad enough so god knows how anyone manages in London. It is fine at home if you have work. Lots don't sadly. Plus there aren't many organic sushi and latte bars

I can imagine there are relatively few decently paying jobs around up there - the railway is unusual that the jobs tend to pay pretty well and seem to pay roughly the same regardless of where you are in the UK. I know someone (a driver) moving to a five bed house oop north from somewhere much smaller down south.

Latte bars are over rated, being charged £3 for a latte by an annoying hipster gets old very, very quickly.

I would say you are being punished if you are happy to move but no accommodation is available within a reasonable distance and you are still taxed 14 or 25% of your benefit. That doesn't seem right. However you are right: decent housing for all should be an entitlement for all in a rich country like ours. That it isnt is a scandal.

I concede there does need to be a level of reasonableness. Perhaps something along the lines of what was discussed up thread. So long as you are willing to move to a smaller property (i.e. put an application in) benefits should be maintained until such a property becomes available.

The simple fact is we don't build enough houses. That's done on purpose to keep the prices up and earn second home owners their premium imo.

Agreed. I think it's partly an issue of the economy being too centred around the south east. You could buy houses in Liverpool for a peppercorn amount relatively recently - and may still be able to? It's partly not enough houses, but also not enough houses in the right places.

Also councils in London in particular seem very keen to approve tower blocks of £1m luxury pads which will be bought up by investors and likely not even lived in. This is where government should step in and force more genuinely affordable housing stock to be built alongside the millionaire shag-pads.

it has to be reasonable, surely. If you have no support network in your new location you will need to take more from the state.

If you're someone with special needs/disabilities of course this shouldn't apply. I'm thinking here more about people living in social housing who are working and earning decent salaries (of whom there are many). Is it unreasonable to ask these people to either relocate or move into the private sector?

it is reviewed all the time however it is incumbent on the claimant to inform the authorities of any change in circumstances. People have their HB stopped on a regular basis Any over payments should be clawed back via any other benefits or via a recovery order. The issue is moving people into work so they don't need HB anymore. In many areas where people rely on HB that work isnt available and/or educational performance is low. It is also worth noting the whole point of the social/council housing system is to move people to owner occupier via right to buy.

To be honest right to buy should probably be suspended until the housing shortage is addressed - as I said earlier the example im aware of of someone buying a council house incredibly cheaply then selling, pocketing a massive windfall and taking one more house out of the social sector. On an individual level we would all do the same if we were in a position to, but it highlights how badly wrong the system has gone.

BTW I know several people on benefits and I don't think any of them really want to be on benefits but there needs to be secure jobs that pay well and are respected in the community as an alternative. The big issue is that jobs are insecure and low waged. That's something that needs to be tackled. Sadly the Tories don't seem bothered about fixing the problems

Agreed - the rise of the gig economy has done nothing to help with any of this.

 

[DarloRich]

@Bromley boy - I don't think I actually disagree with you that much. It is more the operation of the policy than the policy itself that annoys me.

 

[fowler9]

Certainly in Eastern Europe the situation is rather less generous than in the uk. I'll admit I don't know the exact situation in different countries but based on anecdotal evidence from people from abroad, the uk system is pretty generous (if you can get into the system, a big if).

What do you know about Eastern Europe? Talking about Central Europe I have friends from Tychy and Lodz. Would you prefer this country is more like those parts of Poland? I suggest you visit.

Re. your first comment what do you think it should be used for? The original utopian idea that it was available to everyone who wanted it no longer works for obvious reasons, especially in the south east.

The reason social housing is not working is because housing has been turned in to a profitable enterprise for some rather than a place to live. Can you justify the rise in house prices against the complete stagnation of wages?

 

[Bromley boy]

1) You said it isn't the fault of private home owners that successive governments didn't replace the housing stock, yes it is if they voted for governments that didn't replace the housing stock.

2) Social housing was to provide housing for the work force, not an investment for a few people.

3) In one of the richest economies in the world why should people need to claim benefits to put a roof over their families head when they work because of increasing house prices and stagnant wages. It is sickening.

It's the fault of government, not private home owners most of whom will know nothing of social housing. It is expected that government attends to these issues - home owners are no more to blame for the housing crisis than pensioners are to blame for the pensions crisis. It's a structural issue that has arisen over a few decades.

Both Labour and the Tories have pursued the same policies and they are the only two political parties worth voting for in this country, let's face it.

I don't understand 1. Why you think any of this is the fault of private home owners, and 2. What you think blaming private home owners is going to achieve?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Re. your first comment what do you think it should be used for? The original utopian idea that it was available to everyone who wanted it no longer works for obvious reasons

The "obvious reasons" are a Tory manufacture designed to make the gullible think they're middle class. The son of the housing minister who brought in right-to-buy owns 40 ex-council flats in Wandsworth alone. In Wandsworth, half of all right-to-buy flats are now owned by buy-to-let investors.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/right-to-buy-housing-shame-third-ex-council-1743338

"Make them move" may or may not be a legitimate aim, but the bedroom tax does not achieve it. If you're in social housing and on housing benefit you're on a low income. If you've got rent arrears you can't easily move. If you then get evicted for rent arrears you'll be treated as if you made yourself "intentionally homeless" and won't get re-housed socially. So you'll be in private rental, costing more in housing benefit than you were before. The only difference is the housing benefit will be going to some buy-to-let shyster rather than the council.

Those in social housing with good wages don't get touched, of course, because they pay their own rent.

It causes huge amounts of stress, and for what? In many cases we can get a discretionary housing payment from the council to cover the bedroom tax anyway, so it doesn't save money. And if you don't get a DHP, the council will never see the money anyway, most social rent arrears will be collected at £3.70/week on top of the normal rent.

I get exasperated because I spend most of my working day helping people with debts- especially rent and council tax- that wouldn't have been a problem before the benefit changes. Nobody gets any more money but everyone gets a lot more upset. It's a waste of my time. It's a waste of the council's time. It's a waste of my clients' time.

And, given that the banking industry levy pays my organisation to employ me, my time being wasted should annoy you too!

 

[Bromley boy]

What do you know about Eastern Europe? Talking about Central Europe I have friends from Tychy and Lodz. Would you prefer this country is more like those parts of Poland? I suggest you visit.

No idea about those specific areas but I've spoken to quite a few Polish people and a Hungarian couple I know pretty well who say out there you're basically on your own. No I've not said that's how I want this country to be.

The reason social housing is not working is because housing has been turned in to a profitable enterprise for some rather than a place to live. Can you justify the rise in house prices against the complete stagnation of wages?

For home owners it becomes one and same thing. It has to be. I own a home, do I want prices to drop? Of course not. Not because I'm trying to profiteer but because I've got a mortgage and if I ever want to trade up to a bigger property in future I need my place to go up in value!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It seems to be those right-of-centre who are most concerned with taxpayers' money being spent on housing benefit. Conveniently disregarding that right-of-centre governments (basically every government since 1979) have introduced or continued with policies that perpetuate the problems with the social housing sector.
Take my situation: I live alone and have no dependants. I'm disabled and in receipt of ESA, Housing Benefit and PIP. My housing benefit does not cover my whole rent on a pretty sub-standard one-bedroom flat. I rent privately as I'm not considered a priority by the local housing authority, so the taxpayers money I receive for accommodation is effectively profit for my landlord (who, by the way, is non-domiciled for tax purposes). If the local authority had been permitted to maintain their stock of social housing, I'd be hopefully living in one of those properties, and that housing benefit would be going back into the system.

I'm at present not in danger of being made homeless (though as with anyone in my situation I'm maybe one emergency away from it), but if this is the way the system is designed to work, then frankly it's a pretty broken system.

Anyway, I'm out. I need to decide whether to eat this evening or put the heating on, because I can't really do both.

 

[Bromley boy]

"Make them move" may or may not be a legitimate aim, but the bedroom tax does not achieve it. If you're in social housing and on housing benefit you're on a low income. If you've got rent arrears you can't easily move. If you then get evicted for rent arrears you'll be treated as if you made yourself "intentionally homeless" and won't get re-housed socially. So you'll be in private rental, costing more in housing benefit than you were before. The only difference is the housing benefit will be going to some buy-to-let shyster rather than the council.

Are there not more restrictions on housing benefit in terms of it will only pay for a property deemed to suit your needs. ie A single adult could claim rent for a one bed flat and not much more? Clearly you are exposed to this "at the coal face" and put like that it does sound as if the policy isn't doing a particularly good job of achieving its objective.

Those in social housing with good wages don't get touched, of course, because they pay their own rent.

I guess these are the people that I'm really driving at. An ex girlfriend of mine grew up on an estate, I spent quite a bit of time there and knew quite a few residents. There were clearly a lot of people living there who were pretty well off by most standards. It's evidently the same story in the flats near where I live now. Is it right that people with good jobs are taking up this scarce resource?

It causes huge amounts of stress, and for what? In many cases we can get a discretionary housing payment from the council to cover the bedroom tax anyway, so it doesn't save money. And if you don't get a DHP, the council will never see the money anyway, most social rent arrears will be collected at £3.70/week on top of the normal rent.

Are people subjected to the reduction in benefit (not tax ) actively looking for smaller properties, as and when they come available, in your experience?

 

[birchesgreen]

JRM has gained the support of Britain First who warn that anyone who harasses him will get BF stormtroopers (or a couple of fat blokes in Union Flag boxers anyway) on their doorstep. I bet Mogg is thrilled by this backing.

 

[fowler9]

It's the fault of government, not private home owners most of whom will know nothing of social housing. It is expected that government attends to these issues - home owners are no more to blame for the housing crisis than pensioners are to blame for the pensions crisis. It's a structural issue that has arisen over a few decades.

It is all of our responsibility to know what we vote for. Ignorance is a poor excuse.

 

[Bromley boy]

Take my situation: I live alone and have no dependants. I'm disabled and in receipt of ESA, Housing Benefit and PIP. My housing benefit does not cover my whole rent on a pretty sub-standard one-bedroom flat. I rent privately as I'm not considered a priority by the local housing authority, so the taxpayers money I receive for accommodation is effectively profit for my landlord (who, by the way, is non-domiciled for tax purposes).

Are you able to work, if you don't mind my asking?

People living with a disability, especially if it affects their ability to work, are those who should be prioritised for local authority accommodation, in my view.

 

[birchesgreen]

It is all of our responsibility to know what we vote for. Ignorance is a poor excuse.

There is an unfortunate lack of civic participation on all levels in this country, and i can't see it getting any better.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

JRM has gained the support of Britain First who warn that anyone who harasses him will get BF stormtroopers (or a couple of fat blokes in Union Flag boxers anyway) on their doorstep. I bet Mogg is thrilled by this backing.

If he's smart he'll distance himself as much as he can. As a matter of fact, that seems like a pretty mild threat from Britain First when you consider that it's leader was saying in the London Election that BF wouldn't rest until all of the traitors would be punished for their crimes against the country. By punished they meant hanging them. So in comparison that threat of BF Stormtroopers is about as tame as a pet rabbit...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Are you able to work, if you don't mind my asking?

People living with a disability, especially if it affects their ability to work, are those who should be prioritised for local authority accommodation, in my view.

At the present time, no. I do have one of those infamous assessments due in the next few weeks though.

As a single male with no kids, I wouldn't expect to be a top priority even in an ideal world... but due to the shortage in social housing even those who should be a top priority (wounded veterans, single parents, those with sensory or mobility issues for example) have a long wait for housing. I'm a higher priority than some, but there are many who are in greater need than myself and rightly so.

 

[fowler9]

There is an unfortunate lack of civic participation on all levels in this country, and i can't see it getting any better.

Indeed. "Not my fault, not my problem". Even when it is.