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?

Vivienne, please may I ask, do you actually believe that this government's primary motivation in bringing in this policy is genuinely to help large families who have been waiting for housing?

the thing that very few people seam to have grasped is that the 3 groups who will be impacted the most by the hb deductions are people who before this becomes legally enforceable would never have been concidered to be under occuping people who have a legit previously unargued reason to have never been, told all of a sudden they are underoccuping.

oh and it wont even really free up any homes at all because the vast majority of homes with proper unarguable under occuping well at least those in the top 3 largest group of under occupiers are exempt.

Well who knows what their motivation is. But I don't see why people shouldn't move to a smaller house. After all that house is owned by the Council for the people. It isn't a privately owned house. So are the HA's wrong when the ask people to move to a smaller house so a family can have the use of the house. And I don't think people over working age should be exempt. Perhaps over 70's or even over 75's should be exempt. But not people over 60. And the needs of disabled people should be looked at sympathetically.

anyone who has actually read the gov's rules on the matter knows exactly what the motivation is.

and what you have still failed to grasp is there are no smaller homes for them to move to. and the largest groups who will lose money are not actually under occuping.

so they are not asking people who are genuinely under occupied.

I live in a HA house. When my neighbours moved out the house was given to a man who was divorced and had his daughter to stay at weekends. He was given a 3 bedroomed house and in the 12 months he lived there I saw his daughter once. Why would the HA give a 3 bed house to a single man???

Some other tenants son had a baby and he and his girlfriend were given a 3 bedroom house, again, why were they not given a 2 bedroom house. I think the HA should take some of the blame for under occupancy.

do you live in a area thats very hard to get people to willingly live in?

Yes, it is fair. If the state has provided you with a home then you have to accept that conditions will be imposed.

Sockreturningpixie - No, the houses are in a ok area and are snapped up very quickly, they only stay empty for a few weeks if they need be repaired. The council knocked down 2 very large council estates and sold the land for private housing so there is a shortage of good houses.

then that is very strange indeed. do they have any 1 beds or 2 beds with any liklyhood of becoming availible?

My local Council has a policy regarding their mutual exchange scheme, something along the lines of those in larger houses (who no longer need them) who are thinking of exchanging with families in smaller houses that aren't fit for their needs can be offered incentive 'rewards' to do so. I think usually it's things like vouchers or grants for decorating and things like that, maybe increases in housing benefit? I think it's a good idea.. I'm not sure that the new plans to penalise people who are under-occupied are necessarily very nice, but I think they are needed. This is why:

My DH and I used to live in a bedsit when I unexpectedly fell pregnant with DS1. We lived there until he was just over a year old - three of us in one room with a tiny kitchen and tiny bathroom. We didn't have heating until just before we moved, we had one of those water heaters which is powered by electricity (very expensive!) and apart from anything else we had no space. DS1 didn't learn to walk properly until just after we moved, although he was able to walk at other people's houses just fine from about eleven months. Our HV thought it could be because at home we had eighteen square inches of floor space for him to move around in. We couldn't have the fridge/freezer in the kitchen because it was too small, so it had to be in the cupboard under the stairs to the bedsit above (still in our property but not ideal). It was torture, most days. I was a wreck, I could barely sleep, I was so depressed. I just wanted a home for my family. We would have taken a one bedroomed flat just to get us some extra space but were told we weren't allowed because we would still be over-crowded!

If I had known, at the time, of someone living in a two bedroomed house/flat who didn't need the space I would probably have camped outside their home every day and begged them to downsize. It's a truly desperate situation to be in and you can't understand it until you've been there. I hope they go about it in a reasonable way and allow people the freedom to choose where they want to downsize to, etc, and to make sure that the space is available for them to do so before they start hiking their rent payments up, but all in all I think it's a good idea.

Apologies for long, waffly post!

does anyone know if it will include peopleIn privately rented housing but have housing benefit?

it's me and dd in a private rented house, it's classed 3 bedrooms but no word of a lie I've tried fitting a single bed In the spare room and it doesn't fit!!! so technically not big enough to use as a bedroom, it's my walk in wardrobe/ dressing room :)

Well yes, you would probably be counted, I think. Someone with a baby/toddler could put a cotbed in there. If it says three bedrooms then I expect they will count it as three bedrooms.

well good luck to anyone wanting to use it as a bedroom lol :)

inthenightgarden

no private rented are not counted.it is only la/ha housing.

and outside of social housing a bedroom is only counted as a bedroom if it is of a certain size usually about 4.6 sqm. well actually inside social housing using the overcrowding rules if it was smaller it wouldnt be counted but the new hb rules would count it as one even if it was smaller and you also lived in a council house/housing ass house.

hi im new here and didnt know where else to ask this question.
here goes sorry if its long!

i am in the middle of a mutual exchange to another area in my town everything my end was approved yesterday and today the other girls housing officer told us both we could move and on thursday could we come and exchange tenancies. then this afternoon i received a phone call from my h/o saying that the other h/o had said that he is refusing on the grounds that i dont need a 3 bed because i have 2 boys. it is a 3 bed for a 3 bed swap. my h/o said to get a letter from my doctor which i have stating that my youngest is disruptive at night and keeps the eldest child awake half the night making him tired for school which he does and is already in his own room. my doctor stated this in a letter which i have to take down 1st thing in the morning to my housing executive then my h/o will sort it with triangle housing.
i am so worried as they said yes then a while later no! i have an appointment in the morning for the new school they were supposed to be changing to and i just dont know what to do. and could cry i want this so badly

This is just a smokescreen anyway to give the illusion that they are tackling the social housing shortage. What will happen is that just before the next election they will extend and improve the discounts for the Right to Buy scheme to improve accessibility (that is how it will be sold to us anyway) so poorer families can 'get on the housing ladder'. It all bollocks and a drop in the ocean.

emmapenny I'm so sorry, it must be an awfully stressful time. I hope the letter does the trick. Keeping my fingers crossed for you.

Welcome to mumsnet btw :)

emma, the housing benefit new rules are very different to the housing allocation rules. you can be allocated/mutial exchanged ect a house with a extra bedroom providing you can demonstrate a need for a extra bedroom.but hb will still deduct the 14% from your hb award.

thats why you have to get the letter its to prove you need the room, just expect that next year your hb will change to reflect the 14% reduction so you will have to find that yourself,or use the discretionary housing fund.

try not to panic if your housing officer has said it will probally be ok then i expect it will be,they can advocate on your behalf with the other officer.

out of intrest does your docters letter state that sleep issues are creating a medical need for the other room or that one keeps the other awake?

hi Sockreturningpixie thanks for the reply.
dont know what the doc has wrote but he is normally really great help in these situations and i have 2 pick up letter in the morning and take it straight 2 housing executive.
my h/o said that it wont matter 2 them as long as i have a doc letter and it states i need a 3 bed and i explained everything 2 my doc who told me he would sort it and 2 pick it up in the morning. my h/o then said she would just put it on stating i need 3 bed for medical reasons and said which medical reasons were only for her office to update that i need 3 bed for medical reasons and she knows what the doc knows about the wee boy being disruptive and has said thats fine as long as i have that letter in morning and the other housing association has no need 2 know which medical reasons just that there are some.
sorry its so long i just dont know what to do.
i also dont get housing benefit at all and would be paying full rent.

thanks aufanie im keeping everything crossed

Of course people won't like it if they have to move out of a house- but it's the fairest option given the massive housing shortage.

If a homeowner can't afford to continue paying the mortgage and bills on a house which is larger than they need, they downsize. Why on earth should it be different for people who are relying on public funds to live where they do?!

The bottom line is: no one has an automatic right to live in any particular property or location. Many people move around Because they cannot afford to remain where they were born. It's not the end of the world- you accept it and get on with life.

It was a bad idea to ever suggest that people can live in a specific house for life, funded by public money. Just bizarre.

I would be happy to move out of my 3 bed under occupied house, if someone was going to pay for me to redo all the decorating and carpetting in the new house, which I have done here; that has cost me thousands over the last 2 years.

I am an owner occupier. I under occupy. It is my choice to do so and in order to do so I pay a much larger mortgage, larger council tax and larger bills.

Someone who rents privately will also pay extra in the same way.

It is unfair that those in local authority accommodation are entitled to having the extra costs subsidised eg. by housing benefit which they might not otherwise need.

A mind shift in the "council" tenants camp though but hopefully a move that will give lots of families secure tenancies during the years their children are growing up.

I listen to some of the stories on here about people having to move time and time again and the educational disruption that causes with horror.

I do agree with those who think this is a cost - saving exercise more than a down-sizing exercise. Much like the let's pay the sick and disabled less in the hope that they go back to work. The practicalities of both are immense, costly to manage and unlikely to succeed.
However the welfare state has become so expensive, it just cannot continue in it s current state, whether you vote labour or conservative it will make no difference... More cut backs are inevitable in the current economic climate. if the the government keeps spending on welfare we will end up like Greece and Spain ... That really would be painful!
I know things are really, really bad for a lot of people but put it into perspective, we have come along way, the days of workhouse aren't far behind us.