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?

Wow, the Tories' divide and rule is working wonderfully - watch the poor people in overcrowded accomodation attack the poor people in slightly-too-big accommodation! What japes!

The reality, of course,is that this is just another attack on the poor, the disabled and the welfare state. The solution is to build more council housing, thus providing much-needed homes, employment in the construction sector and actually reducing the housing benefit bill massively in the long-term,as hb on social housing is much cheaper for the state to pay than hb on over-priced private rentals.

Sounds like an obvious solution. So why isn't it being implemented? Because house prices and rents would go down nationally,and most of the Tories have large housing portfolios (my Tory MPs owns 22 houses on top of his own home). Not that I see other parties being too different - Labour failed in 13 years to prevent boom and bust, and seemed rather over-keen to encourage boom by any means.

SammyTheSwedishSquirrel I'm guessing if there's no affordable housing locally then you will see people being moved hundred miles to awful areas that no one wants to live in, where they have no ties at all.

Also, it's interesting that many people on here justify the changes by stating that those renting - in secure tenancies that have always been secure - have no 'rights' to that security unlike those who own. Similar to those who think that those who claim 'benefits' like housing benefits or child tax credits - even though they work - are being subsidized by the state.

The reality is that it is the rich who are being subsidised by the state - big corporations get to pay starvation wages and have them topped up by the state; priovate landlords get to charge outrageous rents and have the bill met by the state.

We need to ensure that wages are sufficient to cover minimum standards of living, incl housing, and that affordable accommodation is available to all as a basic human right - a roof over your head is not a luxury item.

Wongadotmom. What a ridiculous comment. . The owner occupiers are just that, they are not in receipt of benefit to help pay their mortgages, and they'll have paid a premium for the size of property / area of their choosing.
That's why they have the choice.

"they'll have paid a premium for the size of property / area of their choosing."

Not in the world I live in! In the private sector, rents are more than mortgages by definition (else why would anyone be a landlord?!)

As usual, if you have access to large amounts of money, ultimately you save. It costs more to be poor.

I don't see any reason why people shouldn't be asked to downsize as their families leave home, many home owners have to face the same decision and others have no choice but to downsize regardless of their family size. People who live in council housing will have been given a property with regard to their need at the time of application, it should not be for life, there should be a sliding scale of rent for these properties depending on income to avoid the very wealthy still retaining that property for a cheap rent. I do find it a bit at those who say that it's not just a house it's their home, the same could be said for anyone who is evicted from their home because they have lost their job etc. I don't understand why anyone who was given a small house and then a larger one as their family grew, would have a problem with downsizing and giving another family the same chance that they did. Yes, there needs to be more affordable housing but at the moment we need to work with what we have.

Another point, about rents being higher than a mortgage, this is not always the case anyway, but even when it is, the difference is often used up in renovations when the tenant moves out. I know that many landlords have to renew the carpets, redecorate etc every time a new tenant moves in, this is expensive. I do think there should be a cap on how many properties anyone is allowed to own (certainly with a mortgage to pay on them), and some way of capping rents and having affordable mortgages for everyone but that's not likely to happen in the short term.

its unfair if it doest cover the over 65s as they are the ones in three and four bed houses living alone and sleeping downstairs i dont care if i have to downsize when my kids leave home its a rented house if we can ever get the money together we will buy our own home then we wont have to worry but while we live in rented accommodation it is not my home it is just a house i happen to live in and that has always been my attitude

deakymom I find your attitude totally abhorrent.

If course it shouldn't cover elderly people, FFS.

Some of them will have lived in the same house for all their life, and be very old and infirm. Forcibly moving them it would have a direct impact on the health of many of them, it could literally shorten the life of many elderly people, and will undoubtably cause untold suffering and distress. It's much more than just an inconvenience when you're elderly.

Even the tories aren't callous enough to be doing that (yet).

This problem should be tackled by building more housing so there's enough to go round, not moving elderly people who should be enjoying their retirement after working hard all their lives.

I don't know how you can sleep at night, what an unpleasant attitude.

Sorry, I meant to say a deeply unpleasant attitude.

Your post has made me actually.

Once these policies bite, we're going to see homelessness rise, the likes of which we haven't seen since - oh let's see - the last Tory government.

Uprooting people like this will destroy communities and leave vulnerable people unable to access family support.

It will make this country a poorer place for all of us.

deaky, you will probably find that most of theses OAPs have paid their rent all their lives and in fact have paid for the cost of the home ten times over, it is their home and the very thought of moving them on is sickening.
If the government want to save money they should tackle the private rental sector and the greedy landlords who rip the ass out of the housing benefits system.

There is homelessness now. All this scaremongering tactics helps nobody. What about the families who need houses now. Not houses in years to come. Do they not matter. Pie in the sky more houses in future doesn't help them. It will be too late for them. People in HA housing have to downsize when the house is needed for families. Don't see why Council Housing should be any different.

Yes but 65 year olds aren't often elderly and infirm nowadays to ask an elderly person much older than that to move would be wrong whilst I don't agree with this policy they've had incentive to move schemes in many places before aimed at couples whose families have grown up those schemes included paying them something towards moving etc. A yopung person could also have many health problems that would make moving difficult as well.

Viviennemary it's not scaremongering at all.

The effects of the policies the Tories are currently putting into place will be a significant rise in homelessness, including a rise in homeless children.

Of course the families who need houses now do matter, but this policy is not aimed at helping them. It is using them as an excuse to make cuts. This is ideological - borne out of a desire to have small government not out of a desire to help families.

People could be given incentives to downsize, nothing wring with that IMO.
But that's not what's being proposed, is it.

Vivie, the councils did do the same in the 1950/60/70s, they moved people from their homes placing them in tower block sardine cans and in the process destroyed entire communities. The elderly were in many cases prisoners trapped on the upper floors of these horrible soulless buildings, no one even knew who their neighbors were. We all know what happened to that stupid council housing idea since almost all the sardine cans have been torn down.

Or if not incentives, there are many other ways to approach this problem.

If the government care about housing people, why have they removed the requirement of new build estates to provide at least some social housing? The answer is simple, they don't care one bit.

Well we can only hope that somebody will come up with a solution because nobody can seem too. And let's face it, if there were not enough houses build in the boom times, I hardly think there are going to be lots of houses built in recession. I don't think it's right for one or two people to be occupying a three or four bedroomed house when there are families waiting to be housed.

Well we can only hope that somebody will come up with a solution because nobody can seem too. And let's face it, if there were not enough houses build in the boom times, I hardly think there are going to be lots of houses built in recession. I don't think it's right for one or two people to be occupying a three or four bedroomed house when there are families waiting to be housed.

Fil was in top floor flat accesable by lift only if it broke he was housebound he couldn't of got up or down the stairs anyway as he has asbestosis and has difficulty breathing along with many other ailments but no-one could get to him either was a terrible thing they did he along with smil are now in a pensioners bungalow

When right-to-buy was brought in, councils were forbidden from reinvesting that money in more housing. This problem has been a long time in the making.

Many Tories would like to do away with council housing all together if they could I expect.

The solution is simple, invest in more housing!

Vivie, do you think that the same rules should apply to the private rental sector because the councils are paying the bulk of their housing benefit to greedy landlords who charge thousands for homes that are only worth hundreds?

We have a railway being rebuilt here as a result money grabbing council is wanting money off private developers for every house they build within an 18 mile radius but no council housing is being built

I have never approved of the huge subsidies being paid to private landlords. If people's houses are being subsidised by the state then I think the houses should be allocated by need. That is if people live in a mansion in Chelsea I don't see why that should be subsidised by the state. But I did see a programme not long ago saying there will always be housing shortage in the UK because of greenbelt land. I don't have the answers. I wish I did!!