It's not nice but it's fair.
No it's not. And it's not going to save much either. Here are a few examples - they are repeated around the country.
Say a 3 bedroomed house costs £500 a month in a 'dodgy' area and a 2 bedroomed house in a 'nice' area is also £500 a month.
A family with 2 childrent the same sex (or with two under 10s) in the three bedroomed house would have to move to the smaller house to keep benefit. There is no cost saving to the tax payer / council / DSS. And if they are on a low inccome they will be able to claim moving expences.
A couple in their 50s who live in a three bedroomed house. Their children have left home and they now foster children. They specialise in taking emergency foster children. If they cannot afford the extra rent then they will have to move and no longer foster. There may be financial benefit to the council HB depatment but the costs of keeping a child in a home will cost £££.
My own case.
I'm in a bungalow that can only be rented by people with mobility needs. It has level access so when I start to need a wheel chair full time it does not need to be adapted. But it has two bedrooms. My landlord (social landlord) has no one bedroomed places. The ground floor council flats do not have wide enough doorways for a wheelchair.
If I manage to get a job I will be able to stay in my home. I get about 40% of my rent paid through housing benefit, the rest I pay myself.
If I move into a council property then I am entitled to have it adapted to my needs, and the bill will be picked up by the council and in tern the tax payer.
My next door neighbours look after a relative's child. But because she is not officially a foster child they will not be able to claim they need two bedrooms.
I rarely see the lady who lives opposite me, she is too ill. I see her relatives arrive daily, I see the nurses arrive and leave. She isn't well enough to go to church anymore, but she will have to move.