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?

Are you?

The other problem I have seen with elderly people under occupying family houses is that they are unable to maintain them, and the building falls into disrepair. I have neighbours who are an elderly couple, they are occupying a 4 bed (council) house, but actually only live in the sitting room and kitchen and have shut the rest of the house off as they have mobility problems and don?t want to heat the other rooms.

I dread to think what state the house will be in when it is returned to the council ( it is worth a couple of million). They are clearly unable to cope living alone and I have reported this to social services as they need support ( they refuse to claim benefits), only to be told nothing can be done until they seek help themselves. I do check in on them when it snows etc, but they clearly aren?t coping.

I wish the elderly weren't exempt fromthis ruling - thye need it most- fluffydressing gown - I agree it is unnacceptable for your 90 year old grandfather to be living without central heating, but I do think he should be moved to more suitable ( and smaller) accomodation.

Ultimately the council houses are rented, those renting privately don't have security of tenure for life. They are a state asset and should be used for those most in need.

Fluffydressinggown, I admire your granddads stubbornness, I really do It's a shame though that he doesn't want to give another family an opportunity to enjoy that house just as he has done with his. And for the record, I think it is disgusting that a 90 year old man is paying £100 a week to live in a house with no central heating

You do all know don't you that it's the tenancy you get 'for life'... Not the house!

I agree that houses should be allocated according to need.

DP's mum split up from his dad when he was 10 and he moved out when he was 16.
She has been with her partner for over 20 years and lives with him 6 days out of 7 and has done at least since I've known him (8 years).

She lives in a subsidised 3 bedroom council house with a garage and huge garden and has never worked full time (contracted for 24 hours a week).

Where she lives there is huge demand for family accommodation and I think it's disgusting that she doesn't even live there.
I can understand wanting to have a house of your own in case things don't work out with your partner but she really doesn't need all that space.

I think that older, more vulnerable people should be considered on a case by case basis but there is no reason why a single, fit, 50 year old shouldn't be made to move into smaller accommodation.

You do all know don't you that it's the tenancy you get 'for life'... Not the house!

poche what's a ' subsidised council house'?

It's perfectly fair if they are on housing benefit.

It is unfair if they are paying their rent from their own private income.b

I have 1 dc, I live in a private rent 2 bed house and pay £70 a month from my benefit entitlement to my landlord
£70 is a lot of money which I would love to other things with however when I had my little one I applied for a council property, I was told I would be put on a waiting list and would have to go into a hostel untill a property was available,
The average wait for mothers with young children living in hostels in my area is a year!!
So while I agree that people should have somewhere to call their home I don't agree with mothers(or fathers) and young children living in one single room for a whole year, not having a bathroom or kitchen to call their own while some people have whole bedrooms that they don't need or use

What I meant was she's on benefits that subsidise her income.
Not that the house is subsidised although she has just had the whole place refurbished even though she's never there and it didn't necessarily need doing, it was just a bit out of date, but that's a whole other thread . .

I have been in a difficult situation myself with 2 children under 3 but had to stay in B & B accommodation because there was nowhere available and in theory I had somewhere (on private rental) to live.

Of course, I'm just talking about one person but I still think fit, healthy, young, single people don't need extra bedrooms/huge gardens.

i am not nor have i ever been a council tenant.however i was a housing officer for about 10 years befor i jumped ship and started working in dv and homelessness.

this is a very very bad idea for several reasons,its being introduced inline with the benefit reforms and capping (hits large families twice) the group who cause the biggest issue with regard to under occuping (over 65's) are compleatly exempt from the rule the group that causes the second largest issue(employed couple none hb recipeants) with under occuping are exempt.the group that causes the third largest issue with under occuping (lone employed none hb recipeants) are also exempt from the rule.

the groups it will hit the hardest are

families where the extra bedroom does not meet the legal criteria under over crowding to be classifyed as a bedroom. they will still have the 14% deducted.

families who have indervidual members who require there own room due to a disability.even if the requirement is essential with regard to vunlnerable adult procedures or child protection procedures.

despite all previous claims by the gov several LA offices have recived guidelines clearly stating that families/claiments who require a residential carer will also be included in the deductions.

bizzarely at the time that this comes into force the gov will also increase the funding for the discreationary housing fund by approx 18 million quid this is a fund with rules that allow for income normally dissregarded by housing benefit such as DLA,CB,maintainance to be taken into concideration without forcing them to take into account outgoings such as carers fees,disability equipment,treatment not funded by nhs (such as sensory room sessions for older children with asd)additional cost ass with being a carer a disability or a child.

and they will be increasing the budget for social housing maintainance - to the poster upthread who surgested that they should fund carpets ect - this will never happen in a million years especially given that cookers/freezers/carpets/fridges have now been classified by the gov as none essentials and most areas will not even let you get a crisis loan to buy them.

i had a lot more to say about this but due to a ill timed sneeze and lack of clenching i have forgotton what it was

Council housing started after the war I think. At that time life expectancy was about 60+ for men and 70+ for women.

Apparently men are going to live as long as women shortly so for men that could mean them occupying the house for another 30 years - so rules will have to change.

Sorry, missed sockreturning pixie's comment, scheme now sounds ridiculous.

I think it's really unfortunate that this has been decided. It must be so unsettling and distressing it is for people. However, I don't see if there's an alternative whilst other families are living in cramped conditions and really need the extra space. What alternatives are there?

The Tories are justifying this scheme by saying that it will free up social housing for those in need, however, there are insufficient numbers of smaller homes for those affected to move into. The policy is all about reducing the welfare benefits budget and is hitting hardest, once again, the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society.

We're waiting to hear the outcome of an appeal in the Supreme Court.

It has been deemed medically necessary by three separate health professionals and a social worker for my children to have a room each due to their disabilities. Hence why we were housed in a four bedroom property in the first place.

The new rules mean that we have to find 14% of our rent from our Income Support and Carers Allowance as we are still considered to be over housed despite medical need. Disability is not an exemption criteria from this property unless you need an extra room for live-out carers to stay in, which is not the case for us.

The appeal to the Supreme Court is on the grounds of disability discrimination and is being brought by a family in similar circumstances to ours. The result should be known by the end of October/early November, and yes the Government are challenging the appeal. More proof they hate the disabled.

Oh, and also we will be liable for our council tax too. So that plus the 14% rent contribution means that out of our income support and carers allowance we'll have to find £60 a week, whilst our tax credits drop £50 a week on top of that when Universal Credit comes in.

Ends will not meet.

Glitter, would they be able to offer you a three bed house?

Possibly. We've only been here five months though, and it would be to the detriment of my kids' physical and medical health.

It was getting physically violent previously.

Plus SS wouldn't be very happy as it's been deemed medically necessary for us to have four bedrooms.

This will be unsettling and distressing for people.

As someone who was renting privately with 3 DC, and had to move 3 times because the owner returned from abroad and wanted to live in his house, the owner decided to sell, and the owner decided to build 4, 4 bedroom houses in the garden OK, that time it was our choice to move because we didn't want DC stepping out of the back door into the path of a digger, I have every sympathy as to how tough it is.

But this is life. If you lose you job and can no longer afford the mortgage, you sell up.

Cutting benefits like this seems sensible, especially when they are people in B&B's waiting for a home. But where will these people move to? I'm not convinced there is enough housing.

The distress will be unfortunate, but when it happens to people who are renting privately I find it hard to muster up sympathy. (Yes, I know it should make me more sympathetic, but weirdly it doesn't ) Maybe I'm not feeling very charitable today.

Wow, did I just majorly contradict myself there!

I agree that the distress is unfortunate. But there are many many people whose needs are not being met under the current system. And those huge subsides on inner London housing are helping nobody except private landlords and I think it is a good thing they are being capped.

It doesn't affect pensioners!