ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
To think if you're a fan of the bedroom tax(276 Posts)
MNHQ have commented on this thread.
That means you are at best a spunktrumpet and at worst a cunt. Watch this short video and see what it's doing.
It has impacted upon people who can least afford it. Worse still the Govt couldn't give a stuff.
I posted it because it is very unclear.
Yes there are other reasons why a disabled person may need an extra room and council will make a decision on if an extra room is needed. That's a crafty trick by the government - 'OK we'll make the rules but you can enforce the really nasty rules and do the dirty work'.
We have all been completely misled because the government have devolved so many decisions to the councils. This results in opposition being unclear and weak because the effect of the legislation varies from one area to another. And it is very hard to fight your own council - we depend on them too much, they have direct power over our future.
Devolving decisions to councils means that your entitlement to support is a dependent on your postcode.
I don't know why you posted that, we've all acknowledged that people with overnight carers are allowed an extra room. I am telling you that due to social care cuts, very few disabled people are eligible for that type of care even with very high needs. Also, I was saying that there are other reasons why a disabled person may need an extra room.
From the Shelter website:
How many bedrooms can you claim housing benefit for?
From April 2013, new rules on 'under occupancy' mean that you can only claim housing benefit for:
one bedroom for a couple
one bedroom for a person aged 16 or over
one bedroom for two children aged under 16 of the same sex
one bedroom for two children aged under 10 (boys and girls are expected to share a room)
one bedroom for any other child
one extra bedroom if you or your partner needs an overnight carer to stay.
Children who dont normally live with you are not included in the calculation of the number of bedrooms. If you share the care of a child, the child is counted as living in the home of the person who gets child benefit for them.
A severely disabled child who needs a room of their own won't be required to share a room. The council will make a decision on if an extra room is needed. The council should take into account the severity of a child's disability (including medical evidence and if an award of disability living allowance has been made) and how regularly another child's sleep would be disturbed if they shared a room.
There are lots of reasons why a disabled person might need a spare room apart from a place for an overnight carer to sleep. Also, social care funding is so stringent that even those who need it don't have an overnight carer, so that small subsection of society is very small indeed.
Agree with expat. Totally untrue.
Most councils can give help financially for a limited period of time but after that the family are on their own. It has caused terrible hardship for many disabled people.
'If disabled people need a room to ensure their care, they do not pay. '
That is untrue.
yes the policys needed to change but telling someone to downsize where there is no where to downsize too is pointless and creates victims we have a HA who spent thousands kitting out a house for a lady with a disabled child then she has to move to a two bed now she wouldn't mind her daughters are young enough to share (and the two beds are quite big bedroomed) BUT they all have tight hallways and bad back access she cant get the wheelchair in so she is stuck plus of course the HA has to spend thousands again kitting out her new house to make it suitable for the child so what can she do?
the thing that really bugs me is grannys and grandads are exempt and they are the main culprits for tying up the housing stock in my area they live in three bed houses sleep downstairs (leaving three beds empty) use a commode (and throw the contents down the outside drain) and strip wash its a waste of a house that a family could use and i know im going against the grain but they should be given property's they can handle or buy a house personally when my kids leave (if i haven't bought a house by then) im downsizing why have more than you need unless you own it? unpopular idea i know but..............
Mumof0, if you friend pays her own rent then she will be unaffected by this. It isn't a tax but a cut in housing benefit to those under occupying, people not claiming housing benefit are not affected.
An additional room where I live adds at least £75 a week to rents.
If disabled people need a room to ensure their care, they do not pay. If they don't need it they have to pay.
But money should be raised through a sliding scale rent , closer to market rates.
This bedroom tax is massively unfair..its open season on people of working age in a time when social housing is hardly available. Councils/HA dont deal with underoccupation anyway so what are we all supposed to do about it? ........Council properties should never have been sold off in the 1st place. It shouldnt be the remit of working classes to suffer for the mistakes made with this.
^^ this. exactly this
My friend was telling me the other day how worried she is about the bedroom tax, her child is going to uni so she will lose child benefit and have to pay for the spare room at the same time. I felt terrible for her, asking if she can move to a flat. She said they are too expensive privately, so I asked how much she paid in rent for her 3 bed home , she said £90 per week. I am afraid I lost sympathy then, there is any number of people who would be grateful to have such a low rent ( privately here that would cost at least £200 pw)
To pay £15pw to have a spare room is a bargain, most I know in private rented pay at least £25 pw top up to make up the rent to get a decent place. Also with short hold tenancies people end up moving every year or so, with costs running into thousands.
Those with mortgages cannot even claim HB however their circumstances change, with liability for costs much much higher . They just have to get on with it.
I live in HA property. My neighbour is 67 and has 4 bedrooms. He isnt working, so is on HB. Now, he's lived there for many years so it probably wouldnt be nice for him to move home..upheaval, etc. But for those who think the bedroom tax is wonderful...is the idea that this is fair? I mean..thats a lot of space for 1 person. In fact come to think of it, on my side of the road most of my neighbours are elderly and the properties here are huge.
This bedroom tax is massively unfair..its open season on people of working age in a time when social housing is hardly available. Councils/HA dont deal with underoccupation anyway so what are we all supposed to do about it? Take the responsibility onto our own backs and build extra properties with our bare hands?
Council properties should never have been sold off in the 1st place. It shouldnt be the remit of working classes to suffer for the mistakes made with this.
I was receiving help for rent... Did any of you even realise that people on housing benefit used to get MORE than the cost of rent and council tax? It was given for no reason what so ever. It was not given to cover anything, just as extra money.
Disabled people are not exempt, only in very specific circumstances.
It does happen to elderly people in the private sector, but it can be very disruptive and distressing for some older people.
I think the cut off age of 61 is quite young, as the majority of people at that are really aren't what you would call elderly, but at the same time people who are 60+ don't tend to have much time left to increase their earning potential to make up a shortfall in HB. That is what makes it acceptable to me to leave the over sixties alone in this, it's not fair to change the goalposts so drastically at that stage in someone's life.
There's no point in expecting the reduction in HB to have the desired effect overnight, it was always going to take years for the situation to sort itself out. But eventually, as older people die and move into sheltered housing, and as people move as soon as their children have left home, the problem of under occupancy will improve.
This happens to elderly people in the private sector all the time, it's not the governments role to insulate elderly people from sadness (I'm not saying this to be trite - it sounds to me that this is actually what you've proposed here).
The point is a deal was struck for a lifelong tenancy. If people know in advance that they will have to move out when their family size reduces they would be more prepared. With private rental you know what to expect, you sign the contract and it remains the same - this is effectively changing the contract halfway along.
Disabled people who need an extra room are exempt.
Boffinmum - I think moving is healthy, but the 'safe' age limit would vary from person to person. With a long term tenancy (instead of a lifelong tenancy) people would be more prepared that they won't be there forever.
I think the bedroom tax will weed these people out anyway because as people's nest empties they will be charged for their extra room and that will happen in their 40s and 50s.
The absurd thing to me is that they sell council homes to tenants - this has caused the shortage in the first place and should be addressed first.
no it Isnt how I see the world at all! It was a joke aimed at Tortington! Just like in RL there will be people who disagree with you strongly and.those who wont. Jesus Im not that sheltered! If the 61+ comment was aimed at me I'm not sure what you are getting at because I actually agree!
I've seen several comments of not forcing the elderly to move which I 100% agree with but this policy is forcing disabled people to move. That is what fucks me off.
FYI: I don't read the Sun. Is that the way you see the world, people who agree with you and people who read the Sun?
I don't agree that 61+ should be exempt, that's ridiculous. I don't agree that you can't force an "elderly" person to move from a house they've lived in all their lives if the house is nearly empty, if the house belongs to the taxpayer, and the rent is paid for by the taxpayer. This happens to elderly people in the private sector all the time, it's not the governments role to insulate elderly people from sadness (I'm not saying this to be trite - it sounds to me that this is actually what you've proposed here).
I agree that the bank bailouts were a bloody travesty, but I don't think it follows that you can't also think that the benefits system in this country is out of whack.
Why are we treating comparatively middle aged people as elderly and unable to move? By 80 it is pretty difficult but surely people in their 60s are comparatively able bodied in most cases? My parents are in their 70s and about to move, btw.
I think a sliding scale of rents is fair, it should be linked with income and property size as well if it is underoccupied.
But you can't force a very elderly person to move out of the home they have been in for decades.
A different kind of tenancy - perhaps 7 years with a proper review on underoccupancy (or overcrowding) at the end of that term would be better.
social tenants in council properties are basically being told that if they can't afford the rent with the deduction they need to take in lodgers to make ends meet
But this ^ is surely not the solution.
That is why it is stupid and doesn't work! The greatest percentage of under-occupiers are age 61+. They are all exempted, even though many that age might possibly be still in work. And, on top of that, in a great number of councils, the lack of places for them to move.
And the suggestion that they go to private housing. LOL. That's going to save money? Even with caps, the housing benefit bill rises, it already has. Because the problem isn't entirely under-occupying. It is that the buy-to-let and system of buying property here has over-inflated housing prices and consequently, rents, on top of the 'No DSS, no children, etc.'
You move a 60-year-old still in work, not claiming housing benefit on his under-occupied 3-bed council flat to a 1-bed private let flat and he needs to claim housing benefit, even though working. And this is assuming he can get a private let as he needs 'DSS'.
The whole thing is such a stupid exercise in putting a cart before a horse and bolting a stable door after the horse has left it's a cruel joke on those in the worst of situations.
But of course, you'd actually have to have knowledge of how things really are.
We can't expect that of people who can't be arsed to figure out who gasses children to death in their beds, can we?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.