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?

They should never have sold all the CH off.

That's what caused most of the problems.

They may have needed them in the first place, they don't need them now.

I think it should be done. I'm in an over grounded small top floor flat with DS who is 4 and DSD who is 6.

It's a small 2 bed, and we can't moved to another council house with affordable rent despite the fact were a working couple, but we can over streach ourselves in a bigger house on the private market and get in mountains of debt.

There are people who need the houses, and people who have no need for them.

usuallysuspect And what are the wealthiest amongst us doing to help with the housing crisis?

Working themselves into the ground to pay tax? Getting up early to go out to work and commute along fume laden roads to pay said tax? Being subjected to continuing work-assessment to see if you perform? Being stressed? Being aware that you will only see half of any salary rise you manage to get after 4 years of pay freezes in your pocket?

I do think we need a radical shake up of planning policy in this country. Its far too reliant on big developers building massive housing estates and the profit margins on bigger expensive houses are higher. We need to push for more self build, but the regulatory regime is biased towards people doing less and less themselves as individuals (cf the Building Regulations, which now do not allow you to even change a socket in your own home), and that has to be paid for.

Shall we discuss the disabled people being forced to either pay extra for a room in which to store their equipment, or being forced to move?

supporting dawndonna as we are in disabled situation and bt too.

The thing is, it hasn't even worked. Less than 6% of households affected have moved. Two thirds of those affected are now in rent arrears.

There aren't enough properties to downsize to and the largest under-occupying group is people over working age - who are exempt.

The BBC report that there are 180,000 social housing tenants under-occupying 2 bed houses, but only 85,000 one bed properties.

The cost of evicting a tenant is also high. So loss of rent revenue, legal costs, Discretionary Housing Payments and so on is going to seriously eat into any savings made.

Not to mention the sheer misery being heaped on people who are already struggling. Fucking barbaric is what it is.

The cap on housing benefit has definately had teething problems. It doesn't mean that its wrong. Long term it should free up larger properties for those who need it.

"The thing is, it hasn't even worked. Less than 6% of households affected have moved. Two thirds of those affected are now in rent arrears."

6% is a start. There is a grosque sense of entitlement on this thread that people think its OK for the state to pay for accomodiation that they dont' actually need. If you want a house larger than you need then earn the money to pay for it!

We need to improve allowances for disabled people so that they can afford the room that they need. However being disabled does not automatically mean that someone needs extra space. Prehaps we need have discretionary housing benefit for disabled people.

I agree its questionable having people over working age being excempt. I can see the sense in making over 75s exempt, but someone in their 60s are still spry enough that they could cope with moving. An elderly person is so close to death/ care home that there is little point in forcing them to move. In fifty years time the problem of elderly people occupying 4 bed council houses won't exist.

We need to build more 1 bed properties or make it easier for people who are under occupying to let out a room or house share.

"Not to mention the sheer misery being heaped on people who are already struggling. Fucking barbaric is what it is."

Its easy to forget the misery of families cramped into inappriopiate accomdoation. With any policy there is always going to be winners and losers. Prehaps the stupidity was the idea that a council property was for life.

ReallyTired

How is it entitled to want to keep your home? If you were allocated a 2 bed because that's all that was available, and is STILL all that's available why should you be penalised? It's not the policy that stinks, it's the way it's been carried out.

I never said pensioners should be exempt, simply that they are.

Why should a council property NOT be for life? The only reason some people think it's stupid is because private renting is so risky and sheer jealousy.

As for being disabled does not automatically mean you need extra space - get real. What an ignorant comment.

Why should someone have a council house for life? If you pay the rent it's vastly lower than market price. I pay £300pm, in my area 4 years ago I was paying £575 private rental. I couldn't afford that now. Should I still get the cheap rent if I start taking home 50k pa?

Oh and being disabled automatically meaning you need more space.... That's the ignorant comment

The market prices are obscene. Thanks for that, Thatcher.

Fifi - it more often than not DOES mean you need extra space.

6% is not 'a start'; it's a sign of outright failure. And the only reason that pensioners are exempt has nothing to do with how 'spry' or whatever they are and everything to do with the fact that they vote for Cameron.

Absolutely council houses should be for life if you want them to be.
And I say that as a soon to be evicted private tenant.
If I got a council house, we would be entitled to a 2 bed. It wouldn't be anything fancy, just a small 1950's terrace or semi, with a pocket hanky garden, but to me that represents security.
What is the alternative? To house us in a 2 bed house, then, when ds leaves home, for me to sell half our furniture, and move into a one bed. So then my son effectively has no home anymore from the age of 18. I want him to have somewhere to come home to in the summers, or if he needs to stay with me to save money to pay off the 50k debt he will be leaving university with.
How "entitled" of me to think that, if I continue to pay rent on a 2 bed, I should be able to call it my home.
Look, contrary to what some people appear to believe council housing is not free. In a council house I would still be applying around 5k a year in rent. Council rent is not that cheap. It is what rent should be. It just seems cheap when you compare it to the (utterly unregulated) private rents.
Council housing shouldn't be seen as short term, like hostels FGS. There are greater implications than just the spite fuelled bootstraps nonsense of "why should they when I don't etc".
Community matters. Continuity matters. The fabric of society is stronger when families are allowed to take root, form bonds with the neighbours, have stability.
You can't talk on the one hand about how Britain is broken, and on the other say that peoples homes are not important.
It's about more than just four walls and a roof. It's about people's lives. Don't blame council tenants because you are paying ££££ in private rentals. I don't. Don't blame people who can't find work in Darlington or the Welsh Valleys and have to rely on Housing benefit.

And if had a council house,started a business, and found myself making loads of cash, I would be looking to move somewhere a lot nicer.
I can't stand this petty spite over people who are perceived to be making out like bandits in council houses.
Save the scorn for the real villains-the ones who are fracking up your national parks to get rich quick, or the ones aiding hostile takeovers of British business. Those are the people who are fucking you, not some person with a 6,5" square boxroom that no-one is sleeping in.
Gah!

Oh and being disabled automatically meaning you need more space.... That's the ignorant comment
I don't think so dear. Wheelchair accessories. Oxygen cannisters. Dialysis equipment. A room for a night carer. Incontinence aids. This list is endless for some people, so yes, some disabled people need a lot more room.

I would also add that if you have a child with, say, ASD, it is not always possible for them to share a room with another child.

Yes, LineRunner none of my could share, all hell would break loose, what with echolalia, precision placing of ornaments, night terrors for one and lack of sleep with another. But apparently I make ignorant comments!

One of the main problems is that you can now no longer swap to a smaller property if it means you would still be liable for the "bedroom tax."

So, for instance, my mum who lives on her own in a three-bed house cannot swap with me and my partner who live with three children in a two-bed flat as we would both still be considered to be under-occupying. Even though it would clearly be a much more sensible arrangement to anyone with quarter of a brain.

Personally, I think anyone who has shown willing and downsized to a smaller flat- even it's two-bed- should then become exempt.

I know someone in a 2 bed council house. They have just marries somdone with childrdn so they have 5 dc in a 2 bed. No 4 beds are available and the council won't move them to a 3 bed as they would moving them to an overcrowded property. System is mad.

Dawn im with you, disablist comments will appear as always.

Completely agree with Dawndonnaagain and LineRunner regarding the disabled.

You also have to take into consideration those who are living in Council houses that have been adapted for their individual needs i.e: wet rooms, ramps, wider doorways, lower kitchen units etc.... All of these will have taken an age and a lot of stress to claim for. It is fair that they have to leave their homes because of an extra room or pay more for the privilege?

Sorry the last comment should read Is it fair........

Disabled people are not a homogenous group. Some disabled people need more space than others. Why is it awful to have some discretion in the system? Not all disabled peopel are in wheelchairs. There are hidden disablities. For example a child with severe autism may need their own room, but profoundly deaf child could share bedroom with a sibbling. As darndonnagain puts it some disabled people need a lot of room. However the space requirements varies from person to person and family to family. A family with two disabled children might need more than one extra room.

The right to basic shelter is a fundermental human right. The fundermental right to shelter is not the same as the right to remain in the same property. Housing benefit is there to stop being living on streets and to provide a basic safety net. It is not there to keep someone in a three bed house for life irrespective of the size of household.

SaucyJack How would a family of five be under-occupying a 3 bed house?