Advanced search

to think this is an outright disgrace!

(79 Posts)
PotPourri Thu 01-Nov-12 23:00:32

MrsKeithRichards Thu 01-Nov-12 23:02:09


Seriously though, can't be arsed clicking and reading so... Yanbu.

PotPourri Thu 01-Nov-12 23:16:14

The government are taking proportion of housing benefits away from people who are deemed to have too many bedrooms. What are they meant to do? - rent out the room, oh that's right, they aren't allowed to sublet.

missymoomoomee Thu 01-Nov-12 23:20:20

I don't think its a disgrace at all, I think its a good idea. They could modify it so if people are on the list for a smaller house they still get benefit unless they refuse a suitable home though.

BackforGood Thu 01-Nov-12 23:24:49

Newspapers will always find a case where it would be really difficult to implement this, but, as a general principle, it sounds right to me - if the public purse is funding housing for people, it is about keeping them warm and dry, not keeping them in the luxury of a bedroom per child and and guest room too !

YellowDinosaur Thu 01-Nov-12 23:25:36

Only skim read the article but I can't see a problem with it either...

quoteunquote Thu 01-Nov-12 23:25:56

Just another policy with no thought behind it, as those who are meant to think about these things do not have the necessary life experience to understand the issues involved, they don't go to wales, not since their second homes burnt, they have no idea about it housing, communities, nor do they want to know.

and are to stupid to ask the vital questions, because they are too arrogant to even realise there is a huge gap in their knowledge,

Because when they paid huge amounts of money for their education, they were more interested in the name of the establishment, than asking if their would be significant gaps in their education when they finished at the school, university.

and we let people like this make decision for the most vulnerable members of society, as well as the rest of us.

PotPourri Thu 01-Nov-12 23:32:40

Thank you quoteunquote.

I honestly can't believe that people think this is ok. Makes me feel quite sick. The people are not asking for a big house. They are already in the house and will be faced with the choice of uprooting their family to a dump in a dodgy area (yes, that is what is on offer for people when they go on the list) or choose not to feed their family one night a week. But hey, they will be warm and dry in the hovel so what are they complaining about??

Clearly none or the policy makers have experienced the 'luxurious' lifestyle of someone on benefits. Course not, because in their eyes they are all just a load of scroungers

missymoomoomee Thu 01-Nov-12 23:35:01

What about the people who are in a 4 bed house and have 2 spare rooms as their family are all grown up and away from home while a family of 5 in the next street are having to squash up in a 2 bed house? Is that fair?

WorraLiberty Thu 01-Nov-12 23:38:17

How is it fair that people are over housed and being paid benefits to fund their over housing when there are families stuck in tiny, cramped flats and bedsits?

Something has to give in order to allow the under accommodated families the chance to raise their kids in the way the over housed did when theirs were small.

It's not nice but it's fair.

BrittaPerry Thu 01-Nov-12 23:38:51

You get the amount of HB determined by your family size, not house size. Many people have trouble finding a house with the 'right' amount if bedrooms, so have to top the HB up out of their food budget to be able to afford a house at all.

This policy is basically made and supported by people who don't understand how it works.

Eg: family of four, entitled to two bedrooms - max HB of £100 a week (varies by area). Cheapest house available that will take HB is a four bed at £600 a month. The family has to take £50 a week out of the budget to top it up. They have two spare bedrooms, so this proposal will reduce their HB even more.

What on earth are they meant to do?

And all the time, this money is going nto the pockets of private landlords - they are paying £300 a month mortgage and it is them 'pocketing the taxpayers cash'. I know the idea is that this will affect people in housing association houses, but people forced out of them end up going to the very few landlords that will take HB. These tend to be tge worst houses and the worst landlords, and overpriced at that.

Most HB is paid to families with at least one working member, btw.

VintageRainBoots Thu 01-Nov-12 23:39:33

I must have missed something, because I'm not feeling the outrage yet.

PotPourri Thu 01-Nov-12 23:47:24

It is rotten missymoomoomee, there aren't enough good quality houses. But the fact remains, there is no financial benefit from having the spare room. You can't sublet. It's about where you draw the line. Family of 6, the husband walks out, the oldest child goes away to college. The now single mother then has to uproot to a dodgy area with her 3 (possibly all) small children because she's a single parent and can't afford to feed her children if she doesn't have the full benefit, and it's not like she can rent out the room to cover it. It's not humane.

bitbizzare Thu 01-Nov-12 23:50:40

It's fair but tough. I worry as my room at my mums council house is only used at weekends! Can't be doing with sleeping on the sofa every weekend!

missymoomoomee Thu 01-Nov-12 23:57:39

There are plenty of council house swap sites so people can have control over the area they go to.

I also don't think all smaller houses are in dodgy areas either, some may get moved out of dodgy areas into nice areas.

There is no financial benefit to living in a house thats too big for you if you can't sublet but there is also no reason to give up a house thats too big which is leaving some families in houses that are too small.

IneedAgoldenNickname Fri 02-Nov-12 00:00:21

Why are you so sure smaller house means dodgy area?

WorraLiberty Fri 02-Nov-12 00:10:10

I have no idea why you're equating smaller properties with dodgy areas either?

Anyway, what about the families who are forced to live in dodgy areas in a B&B or hostel because other people are clinging on to the council homes that are too large for them now their kids have flown the nest?

AuscreemaAscare Fri 02-Nov-12 00:10:39

DH, DD and I were in a 1-bed flat for four years. Someone I know had managed a house-exchange from a three to a four-bed with two young DC. They had a fucking playroom from the time the baby was six months old. The shortfall was paid by cash-in-hand child support which was supposed to have been declared then.

I should feel outrage.

However, I can also know that moving is expensive and worry how this will affect foster carers. How the hell will that save money unless they are exempt? It's miles better / cheaper to have children looked-after within families. Disabled people who need a room for an overnight carer will be affected too.

Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture I suppose. I'm bloody sickened by the way this government is pitting everyone who is struggling against each other that's for sure.

MummyDuckAndDuckling Fri 02-Nov-12 00:12:39

They are starting this in Scotland to and I fully support it. Why should a couple with no children at home stay in a 3 bed house for example

WorraLiberty Fri 02-Nov-12 00:12:43

Are you absolutely sure disabled people who need room for an overnight carer will be affected?

I strongly doubt Foster carers will.

VintageRainBoots Fri 02-Nov-12 00:15:51

My family and I gave up on finding an affordable three bedroom place in Guildford---too expensive for three bedrooms! Well, perhaps not too expensive, but our goal is to buy a house soon and we don't want to spend any more money on rent right now than we have to---so we're now looking to rent a two-bedroom place. Nicer area, smaller place for our money.

However, we could easily afford to rent a three-bedroom place in Aldershot, but it wouldn't be nearly as nice as Guildford. For the same money, we'd get a bigger place to live, but a dodgier area.

CouthyMowEatingBraiiiiinz Fri 02-Nov-12 00:16:29

The thing is, this policy WON'T affect pensioners whose DC's have already left home. So won't free up those houses.

And at the same time as implementing this rule, they have ALSO changed the rules on who qualifies for what size property on the Council/HA list.

Last year, with a (then) 13yo DD, a 9yo DS, a 7yo DS, and a baby DS, I qualified and was given a 4 bed HA property.

Now I no longer qualify for a 4 bed. There is a 3 year wait for a 3-bed Council/HA house here. Nobody else wants to swap because they will also be out of pocket.

So where EXACTLY in my non existent surplus (defecit more bloody like) of benefits am I meant to find an ADDITIONAL £100 a month to top up my housing benefit with, when I am ALREADY paying a £100 a month top up?

That is a week and a half every month of my benefits.

I give up on trying to explain to people why the only possible reason for this policy is to dismantle the Welfare state without giving a toss about the consequences.

And no, I can't go out to work. No fucker wants to employ me. Probably because I have 3 diagnosed disabilities now, and 3/4 of my DC's also have dxd disabilities.

And no, I don't get ESA right now, ATOS think they can cure my disability by telling me I no longer qualify for ESA. I'm not sure if they think they're fucking Jesus or what. hmm

And of course, as I no longer get ESA (I was getting IB), and my DLA renewal was due quite quickly afterwards, I lost my DLA too.

And font think the disabled are protected from the effects of this shitty rule - even those requiring a live in, or overnight carer, are not exempt. Yet as part of covering H&S regulations, the disabled person HAS to provide a bed in a separate room for the Carer.

Which they won't be able to do if they have to downsize. Which conveniently cuts the costs on overnight care too. Leaving these disabled people to fend for themselves.

And people can't envisage the myriad of reasons why this policy is a load of wank designed to cut the cost of Welfare without putting alternatives in place?!


CouthyMowEatingBraiiiiinz Fri 02-Nov-12 00:18:20

Actually, Worra, Foster Carers ARE going to be hit by this policy.

WorraLiberty Fri 02-Nov-12 00:22:29

Are they Couthy? Well if they're regular carers then they shouldn't be.

I think the Government will be definitely shooting itself in the foot there.

I'm trying to work out in my head how my Aunt and Uncle managed in a 3 bed council house with 7 (yes SEVEN!) kids?

But back then (1960s onwards) it was perfectly normal to sleep 3 kids in a double bed or 2 in a single - topping and tailing.

PotPourri Fri 02-Nov-12 00:23:00

well said couthymow

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: