to think this is an outright disgrace!

[PotPourri]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20159904

But Worra, if you didn't have a bed per child now, SS would be having kittens. I can promise you that. Even if your 2yo still cosleeps, you are expected to have either a cot, a toddler bed or a proper bed for them.

I think in freeing up suitable council properties they're actually trying to help the poor.

They're trying to help those poor families who are crammed into tiny unsuitable homes, to be able to raise them in larger homes...just like the over housed tenants were able to do.

It's sad for the families who will have to downsize but it's good for the families who will then be afforded the same quality of living.

Tory Voters Pensioners won't be affected no, and the root of the problem goes back to the Thatcher years.

When my family lived in what was built specifically as a single elderly person's flat I used to volunteer at the local community centre Old Folks Group. One gentleman looked at me putting up a card asking if anyone would like to downsize and said he had a four-bed three-storey house and only used the ground-floor but alas, he bought it during the eighties, when the stock was sold and not replaced.

Not that it would have helped me, but he would have loved to live in a flat like mine and could have sold but his children didn't want their inheritance being eroded and refused to help with the practicalities

Yeah you're right about SS...times have definitely changed there.

However, there are still families stuck in tiny B&Bs and little flats that SS can do nothing for unless the larger properties are freed up.

'That means separate bedrooms will only be allocated to a brother and sister if they are over the age of 10, or same sex siblings when they are over 16'.

So does that mean under the new rules I'm entitled to a four bedroom house as I have two boys that share and one girl all over 16 yet live in a three bed roomed house?

All it will do is cost the government more as more people will have to move in to private lets costing exorbitant rents. The empty houses will go to those at the top of the list IE the homeless or as the HA said to my daughter when she wanted to move, the immigrants get first choice but don't tell anyone I said that. Any families already on the waiting lists that think they will get a bigger house because of the new rules are kidding themselves I think, especially as most of the larger houses are occupied by pensioners who are not included in the scheme

Yeah but I'm sure your DD is intelligent enough to know that 'the immigrants do not get first choice' and the person was talking absolute bollocks and crap?

But Worra - they AREN'T going to be freeing up properties like this. The majority of over housed people in council/HA properties are stuck, because THERE AREN'T empty properties for them to downsize into.

Like me. I will not be put on the list for a 3-bed until the end of this month, when my Council updates its website. I then have a 3-year wait. Or more, as I can't leave this estate due to court orders for access, and the schools my DC's attend, their SN's would mean school moves = A BAD THING.

Where exactly are people meant to FIND these mythical houses to downsize to? Because they aren't being built.

I can only speak for the area near me and at one time it was the largest council housing area in the whole of Europe.

There are plenty of properties to downsize to and people in desperate need of upsizing.

The trouble is, the downsizers (until now) have held all the cards and can afford to be really choosy about the areas they move to.

I've looked at the rules again, and I'm going to message my council to clarify.

I have been told that they will only pay HB for a 3-bed for me, not the 4 that I'm already paying a top up for.

I'm not sure how it works when I have 3 DS's?

Would the youngest be able to have his own room? He won't fit in the room that the older 2 DS's already share. He can't go in with DD?

I thought it wouldn't affect me until they sent me the letter, tbh, because of the ages and genders of my DC's, plus the fact that I'm in a new build, and the square meterage of the bedrooms is very small, so small as to be classed as too small for 3 DC's to share the room.

Not that it makes this policy any better, tbh, and as I WON'T be under occupying in a few short years, it's pointless moving anyway, I'll just have to starve myself do I can feed the DC's AND pay the rent in the meantime, if it DOES apply to me, which I now have question marks about, but it doesn't make the policy any better.

It is an ill thought out policy, as it doesn't affect the very people that ARE under occupying, the pensioners rattling round in 3/4 bed houses.

Worra - I'm now wondering if we are near each other? I have heard that snippet about a particular estate on the other side of my town.

Worra - there may BE plenty of properties to downsize into, but there's just one drawback to them.

They are already occupied, and mostly by people that AREN'T under occupying.

How to solve that?

couthy where I am, the council say that you can't have more than 2 children per room. So if you have 3 ds and 1dd you would be allowed 4 bedrooms.

At some point, the downsizing chain will fail, with more people wishing to downsize into that size property than there are EMPTY properties that size.

Someone elderly or disabled but with a room for an overnight carer in a two bedroom property can only feasibly downsize to either a ground floor one bedroom flat, or a bungalow. There are in no way enough bungalows for all the people that need one, and the elderly or the disabled person will be competing with the young adults moving out of their parent's houses for the one bedroom flats.

The chain will break down, through sheer lack of EMPTY properties in the correct size.

Unless of course the Government is undertaking a massive house building project to fix that flaw in their system.

Thought not.

this website let's you work put how many bedrooms you are entitled to

A big nationwide council house building project would do an awful lot towards improving the economy and society. It would provide jobs as well as housing. If it went hand in hand with an initiative to sieze empty and derelict buildings and convert them, it would be even better.

That the government haven't tried to do such a thing is mostly evidence of stupidity and incompetence rather than a wish to create a serf class; the creation of a serf class is something they are sleepwalking into.

And what about those IN social housing that is larger than they need, who are only getting part of their rent paid by HB?

If they decide to attempt to absorb the cost by paying their full rent themselves, rather than downsize, then that will not free up that property.

The only way to make sure their is enough social housing for those in true need, suitable for their family size, is to invest in replacing the family size homes that councils have lost from their 'stock' from the Right to Buy scheme.

Which isn't going to happen.

This also affects those who have children with disabilities that would previously have meant that they got a larger house because that child needs their own room due to either disturbing the sleep of the child they would be sharing with, or display behaviours that would affect the wellbeing of the child they were sharing with, like poo smearing, or being violent towards their sibling (ADHD, Autism, to name two disabilities that might have this issue), or those DC's like my DS2, with chronic asthma, or other health issues, that require bulky medical equipment like HEPA air filters, like Nebulisers, and in other cases, things like gastro pumps etc.

Up to now, they have received HB to cover their need for the extra room. Now they won't.

So they either downsize, and expose their other child to things that may affect their emotional and physical well being, or they cut their food budget to pay the extra rent, pushing a family already going through a lot further into poverty.

NICE.

Can you honestly tell me that isn't ideological, SGB? Unless you are MONUMENTALLY stupid, you surely see the effects.

They did impact assessment studies before putting forward this policy. I've read them. They KNEW what effects this policy would have, and implemented it anyway.

How is that 'sleepwalking'? How is that NOT ideological?

As a warning, it only gets worse under Universal Credit, when Housing Benefit will cease to exist, and will be paid as one element of your benefits, in work or out, disability benefits, child related benefits all in the same pot.

And if your housing costs are high, and you are working but in low paid employment, then your other allowances are reduced by 1.5 times your housing element. I am assuming this will be the same for unemployed claimants too.

Again, NICE.

WorraLibertyFri 02-Nov-12 01:00:31

Yeah but I'm sure your DD is intelligent enough to know that 'the immigrants do not get first choice' and the person was talking absolute bollocks and crap?

So how do you explain that the last three flats that have become available in her block are occupied by immigrants. She knows this because they cannot understand the key lock buzzer system to get in the flats they don't understand basic English and as she is in the bottom flat they press her buzzer to get in? Your not living in the real world if you think the HA was lying.

It's a bit a legislation designed to solve one problem that creates two more like most government policy that's designed on the hoof to please tabloid readers.

Foster carers will be affected, Worra :(

Elderly couples who have lived in the same 2 bed house for 40 years will be affected, because they're only entitled to 1 bedroom now.

Some disabled people living in specially adapted houses will be affected, because there is a very limited stock of adapted properties, and previously their mobility needs have meant they were allowed a house an extra bedroom if this was all that was available - but now they're not.

Second-marriage and 'step' families will be affected, because a child who visits dad (or mum) at the weekend will no longer be allowed their own bedroom, but will be expected to share with a half- or step-sibling of the same sex whether or not the half- or step-sibling wants to, and regardless of whether they hate each other.

A child can only have one bedroom, even if his/her parents are separated. So my own DS2 will now have to share a room with his dad when he stays there, 2 nights per week. I could allow his dad to 'claim' that DS lives there so that he could have his own bedroom (I own my own home and don't claim HB so the rule doesn't affect my housing) but (a) he doesn't and (b) I would then also lose the CB and tax credits I rely on. The same rule would apply if we had a DD rather than a DS - the girl would then be expected to share a bedroom with her dad.

More info here.

It's going to cause total chaos.

Flow - just one thing to add. The rules about a child only being 'counted' for a bedroom in Social Housing if the parent applying receives the Child Benefit has been in operation for years. I think THAT was brought in by the last Conservative government, but Labour did bugger all about it either, despite lobbying.

Some Councils had enough stock till now to ignore that, but most (certainly in the South of England) didn't.

I know because my Ex took the council to tribunal to get our DS1 added onto his housing application with his partner. It took 8 YEARS for the council to accept that he had a need in both houses as he had a 45/55% split for access.

Then he had to stop seeing his dad at his house, due to his dad's partners actions and SS recommendations, and duly was removed from their housing application, dropping them a bedroom, but that's a different thread...

What I'm saying is, it has been standard practice got a child to only be counted for a bedroom on the application for social
Housing if the parent in receipt of Child Benefit for a very long time, in most areas, that far predates this totally separate issue.

This is a horrible policy but I spoke to a social housing rent person today who told me that this new rule would only apply to new tenancies - not sure how true that it but it might be hopeful for some people

Nope, the drop in HB for an extra bedroom is for ALL tenancies, new or old, held by those under pension age.

It's the 'affordable rent' bullshit is it affordable policy that only applies to new tenancies.

For now. If you read the policy briefing notes, and the Welfare Reform Bill in FULL, you will see that it is now on the statute books that this policy can be extended to ALL tenancies at any point.

Which means that if they feel like extending it to existing Tenancies at any point, they CAN.

Watch for that if the Conservatives win the next election...

CrispyHedgehogFri 02-Nov-12 02:03:16

This is a horrible policy but I spoke to a social housing rent person today who told me that this new rule would only apply to new tenancies - not sure how true that it but it might be hopeful for some people

No it applies to everyone sorry.