to question the cut in housing benefits for under occupying council tenants?

[Liketochat1]

In April next year the government are cutting housing benefits to working age council tenants who have more bedrooms than they need. They will be offered alternative accommodation of an appropriate size with no reduction in housing benefit as an alternative.
Is it fair to change the current system like this? To ask people to leave their homes and possibly the area in which they live? To expect siblings of the same gender to share a room?
Do you think it will be extended to include oaps who occupy properties which are too big for them. Should it?

I'm pretty sure it does include oap's. My parents are in a 3 bed house which was very full when we all lived there but it's just them now. I'd hate to see them turfed out, they are in their 70's and my dad is in poor health and to make them leave the home they have lived in for nearly 50 years would devestate them. I'm pretty sure they've had their rent increased because they are under occupying the place though.

Yes, I think for far too long there's been a huge housing shortage (here in London anyway) and as much as it's not nice to make people leave the homes they've lived in for so long...I think it's the only fair way to ensure other people are able to raise families in the same way the occupants were able to.

There is no fair answer, it could be argued that this change is unfair but it is most certainly unfair that so many families are in temporary accommodation because people are under-occupying. (The same could be argued for home owners but that is much harder to tackle, I can see a council tax equivalent in future).

Makes perfect sense. It was a mistake though to let people think family sized houses were for life.

Better them moving to another, suitable accommodation than a family in B and B. Better still to have enough housing for everyone but that's not going to happen.

Hmm this has been done several times before and there is a mix of opinions typically based on each persons individual circumstances (understandably)

On the face of it it seems reasonable to me although maybe something could be done so that this applies to incoming tenants only so they know the score from the word go ?

I know of an elderly lady who lives in a 4 bedroomed council house. It makes no sense that she lives there and a family of 5 live in a 2 bedroomed flat or a B&B. In the same way that anyone privately renting would have to choose to pay over the odds for a property with spare rooms, so should people who under occupy social housing. Those rooms are needed.

It's the elderly who will be most affected

This idea discriminates against council tenants and recipients of HB. Is it their fault that there is a shortage of affordable housing?

There are many owner-occupiers that have more bedrooms than they need. Maybe they could be made to take in the homeless or be taxed for each empty bedroom if they refuse?

I thought you could stay in a house, but your housing benefit would be reduced by 14% for each room you were under occupying.

Yes I think it should happen. We have an acute housing shortage in this country and many families in substandard accommodation. Regardless of whether you have been in a house for 5 months, 5 years or 50 years, if it is a council house or you have housing benefit in a private rental then you don't, and shouldn't, have complete control over whether you can stay or not. The state has to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible and if an older couple are occupying a family home that is too big for their current needs then they can't expect to be allowed to stay there at the expense of a family crammed into substandard accommodation. Nobody is making them homeless as they will be offered alternative accommodation. Many elderly people who own their homes outright still have to downsize for one reason or another, often despite it being very sad and unsettling leaving their family home (my grandad, DH's gran and nan have all had to do this). If you are subsidised by the state in one way or another then I really don't see how you can expect to have the right to stay in the house you've been in for years if another house is more suitable for your needs and another family more urgently requires your home.

I think it's wrong. There's a shortage of council houses because the government sold them all off. Don't punish existing tenants for the government's decisions by forcing them out of their homes. Build more houses.

Course it's fair! Other people obviously need the homes more than they do.
And why shouldn't siblings of the same gender share a room? What a bloody ridiculous question.

I'm a council tenant and while I think yes its horrible to have to do this to people, there are too many people very overcrowded.

I'm told by my neighbours, for example, that the previous tenant in my flat (one bed) was here with two children and her husband, and while they were waiting when she asked the council what to do regarding no room for beds for everyone to sleep she was told a bed roll in the kitchen for the eldest child. Thats not right. Nor is an old friend whos mother threw him out as soon as he was 16 (she was off sick/alcoholic at the time) leaving him to need benefits and a council flat etc to be able to finish school (nov. baby) and she got to keep her "family home2 council house fully paid for with only her in it.

Does it discriminate against hb recipients or actually work towards making sure families in receipt of hb have a large enough home?

I haven't got any real strong opinions on this except I like the idea of an utter useless arsewipe family member not being able to lord it up in a 3 bedroomed semi, all by himself 6 days a week. His sons could easily share bunks or even a sofa bed one night a week.

But Wonga - owner occupiers are not taking any state money to stay in those bigger houses so it's not really the state's business what they do.

What happens if you agree to downsize and they have nothing available in your area?

And i believe OAP's won't be affected if they are existing tenants.

Yes but owner occupiers OWN their house. They aren't receiving public money for living there are they? Plus many owner occupiers do downsize when they need money.

Elderly people will be most affected in the short term and that is a shame, but as time progresses it will be younger people whose children have left home.

No one is building loads of new social housing. There is a shortage. Empty rooms in one person's house means misery for other people. My mum, brother and I were homeless in the 1980s for four years and lived in crap temporary accommodation until a council house became available. It is very, very difficult. It impacts schooling, health, mental health, work, social networks etc etc. I appreciate that old people may not want to leave the home they have lived in for a long time and I do sympathise, but the rooms are needed.

I'm on the fence about this one slightly. It will not affect over 65's but I do think they should be encouraged to move to smaller accommodation if they are in a house with more bedrooms than they need. At the end of the day, everybody living in council/HA accommodation are still only tenants, the house is not theirs.
I think one of the problems with the change is that there are still many people who do not know about it. For example, my friend is in a HA 3 bed house. There is her, her partner, her 3yo dd and 1yo ds. Technically they should only be entitled to a 2 bed place until dd turns 10. She only found out about the bedroom tax last week when I told her, no info from her landlord, HA, housing officer - nothing! Neither her or her partner work he's a lazy bastard so come April, they will have to pay about £40 a month towards their rent. They've been in the house less than a year so is it unreasonable to get them to move? I don't know. Would the council even let them move? Again, I don't know. I can see the whole system being a bloody good mess to be honest...

I'm a council tenant and have just swapped from a 2 bed bungalow to a 3 bed house. They only had 1 adult son living at home so didn't need a third bedroom and we have 3 children. If you go onto swap websites there are lots and lots of people looking for swaps. If you are downsizing you have a huge choice of properties.

Actually what I don't think is fair is that foster children are not taken into account in this. So if you foster and have an extra bedroom for any foster children you have, your hb will not cover that room. Same with disabled people. If you need another room for equipment or a carer, hb will not cover that room either. That part obviously hasn't been thought out very well imo.

What about people who don't receive housing benefits but live in a council house?

My Grandad is 90, he has lived in his 3 bed house since it was built in 1952. He has paid rent every, single week for 60 years and has never claimed benefits (he claims his state pension but he worked from 14 to 65 so paid in for it!)

Should he be moved? When he got the house he was not told it was his until his children left home, he signed the tenancy agreement thinking it was for life, he probably didn't expect to still be alive at 90!

He could have bought it in the 80s but he didn't, should he be punished for this by being forced to move?

I guess that if people are going to have to downsize then councils will have to take on more responsibility for general maintenance. For example, carpeting houses, decorating them, replacing broken fencing etc. Currently the tenants are responsible for things like this, but it would be unreasonable to expect them to pay for this kind of thing if they're occupancy isn't secure.