Mumsnet Talk

Mouthy. You and your family are whom the welfare state is there to support.

NOT those who could work but choose not to. NOT those who work part time through choice so they can be topped up by the taxpayer.

'All over the country there are families living in unsuitable, overcrowded B&Bs or private rentals. However flawed this policy is - and I do think it is flawed - if it does make suitable HA accommodation available for some of those families in desperate need then at least it will have achieved something positive.

And if the three of you do end up having to share 2 bed accommodation for a short while, until your daughter is independent, that's surely not the end of the world.'

That's why the policy is flawed, olgaga. People won't move because they can't. They cannot afford to (many, many councils don't have bond schemes) or can't find a private landlord who will take LHA (it's a landlord's market with so many unable to buy a home), or their rent in that private-let is even higher and unaffordable without needing more LHA/HB.

The policy exempts the largest proporation of under-occupiers, pensioners, and indeed anyone age 61+, and targets the disabled - 2/3 of those affected are disabled or have a disabled person in the household, including a child.

So they can't afford to move or can't find a suitable alternative so all that happens is they get poorer and/or get into rent arrears.

undercoverhousewife Thanks for the suggestion but DD's dad is dead.

Olgaga I don't want to engage with you any more on this thread. You just seem to be trying to pick a fight with me personally. You accused me of flouncing when I was actually working and you won't be satisfied until I have done as you have told me to do and moved into a smaller house. Please just leave it now.

What are you going to do CuttedUpPear. In your situation I would really think very carefully before moving house if you like the house you are in. Why not see if you can possibly make up the shortfall if an appeal fails. If you think say £75 a month. Your daughter could get a job in the holidays or weekends. And if you made a few cutbacks. I've been in a situation when I've had to really cut back and think of all the ways I could cut back. And that is the only answer.

I am going to write to the council with the dimensions of the room, as it falls under the legal size for a bedroom.

And if that isn't enough for them I'll find ways to make up the shortfall until DD returns to live here permanently. As I've said upthread she's a hard worker but I wouldn't take any money off her now as it's too hard for her to manage at uni as it is. She'' be home in six weeks til October and we'll just have to manage when she goes back.

Hope you get something sorted out. It does sound as if you will be exempt if your room falls under the legal size. And don't be fobbed off by them saying it doesn't apply. If they are difficult contact the Citizens Advice Bureau.

Thanks

Merry yes, you are certainly right about that, and I'm sorry life is so tough for you.

Life changed for my DSIL when her ex left her out of the blue with four young children, having cleaned out their savings. The 16yo DS has been diagnosed with a genetic bowel disease. There is no choice but for him to continue to share quite a small room with his two younger brothers. She and my DB are increasingly worried about the effect of the amount of time off work they are juggling between them for all the hospital appointments.

expat as I have said, I do feel the policy is flawed. It's common knowledge that the real purpose of it is to to increase HA revenue, and reduce central funding. The govt expects most tenants to simply pay up - they are not expecting the policy to achieve its state purpose of making larger properties available.

As I have already said, ideally more social housing should be built. That would be better both for families who need affordable homes, and for the economy. At the very least, some existing properties could be freed if a positive financial incentive could be offered, rather than this negative, penal one.

However, as I have already pointed out, that's not going to happen under this government. They already think there is far too much social housing as it is, and all it does is encourage reliance on the state.

This is the ideology of the right being played out. A smaller state, more self-reliance, lower taxation.

Councils are now being encouraged to introduce short-term social housing tenancies reviewed periodically on the basis of need. Some local authorities (eg Westminster) are already beginning to do this for under-25s. It's only a matter of time until it is extended.

It certainly will be if there is another Tory-led coalition.

As I said in an earlier post, if the room is 7' by 9' or smaller, it should be exempt.

Good luck OP!

Just adding this to the mix

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-farce-just-50-1745529

Thanks baba...the article says "Parents with a child at university will be allowed to keep his or her bedroom, without facing a reduction in housing benefit, as long as the student stays at home for at least two weeks a year."

That's me!
I wonder if is true?

I have found the formal guidance for LAs published by the DWP - it's HB/CTB Circular A4/2012. Quote the circular number in the letter you write to the LA and state that your daughter's absence is temporary and she intends to return home, as well as stating the bedroom size.

(Page 38)

My child is away at university, can I keep their room for when they are home in the holidays?
The new size limit rules do not allow for this, unless the absence is temporary (less than thirteen weeks or 52 weeks for students) and the young person concerned intends to return home.

You must ensure you update the LA if your circumstances change, it sounds like they won't hesitate to pursue any overpayments.

There is also a discussion here on rightsnet.

What ItsallnowaFeegle said ^

FFS the information being disseminated all over the internet constantly.
And MN is usually one of the best places for research.

Brick up your doors knock down the walls : Labour MP Frank Field makes dramatic call as 'bedroom tax' hits > Independent 28 March 2013 '...I hope landlords will brick up the doors to spare bedrooms and, where appropriate, knock down the walls, so that the properties can safely fit the tenants. I have never before asked for direct action. I do so now because I feel the measures are grossly unfair.”

He added: “Why do I advocate for the first time direct action? I do so because the tax is so grossly unfair and is levied on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Wicked actions require a different response from parliamentarians.”