to wonder why the bedroom tax gets more attention than the fact that private renters getting Local Housing Allowance always have to top up their rent?

[coco87]

The bedroom tax is constantly in the news and I understand that people feel strongly about this. However, I am a bit perturbed as to why the bedroom tax gets so much more attention than the plight of private renters and especially those who can only pay their rent with Local Housing Allowance but always have to top it up from wages/other benefits because LHA only covers a percentage of most private rents?

Why isn't anyone in government protesting against this excess which is normally much more than anyone currently having to pay the bedroom tax would ever have to pay?

For example, one of my friends lives in a flat and she gets £230 pw in LHA but her rent is £290 pw (this is London), so she has to find £60 extra to top it up. There are now more people private renting than social renting, so this should be a much bigger issue imo, although both are a scandalous.

'It's as if the only ones who matter are the people renting from the council. Nobody cares about private renters. It should be the same rule for both. Anything else is totally unfair.'

Newsflash: this government does not care about anyone but the rich, and are doing very well pitting the poor against each other, you certainly fell for their spin.

'A third of MPs are buy-to-let landlords so I think that we can safely say they aren't really interested in fair market rents or improved tenants rights.'

Exactly!

The reason I made the comparison is that social housing on the whole is much better in every aspect that private renting. Not only are rents about 1/3rd of private rents, most have security of tenure so can't be booted out on a whim and (until the bedroom tax) allowed people (and still allow pensioners) to live in properties much too big for them, so we have the situation of 65+ year old pensioners living on their own in 3/4 bedroom house provided by the state whilst families with 2 or 3 children are crammed into tiny private rentals, costing the earth and having to top up with their wages/benefits. The situation is dickensian. We are literally going back in time.

Yes, social housing is, in the whole, much better. That's why we really need to improve security of tenure, and value, for private renters.

I think that the bedroom tax is a horrible injustice, because people are being financial coerced into moving, but have nowhere to move to. I am glad that there's lots of public opposition to this unfair policy, and agree that action urgently needs to be taken to tackle the issues that private renters face.

'so we have the situation of 65+ year old pensioners living on their own in 3/4 bedroom house provided by the state '

Anyone age 61+ is exempt from the so-called bedroom tax.

What is Dickensian is energy companies allowed to put up prices willy-nilly so that plenty of people have to chose to heat or eat, discrimination in private housing, insecurity of tenure and people going without basics to keep a roof over their heads.

I just find it a bit annoying that private renters have a very poor deal all round with six months tenancies and so on. But this is never on the news. It's nothing but bedroom tax. And Labour did nothing for private renters. I voted for them last time but won't be again.

Private renters have the freedom, in theory, to move to a smaller property so they won't have a 'spare' bedroom. People in social housing have to take what they are offered by the housing provider, and in many cases have been offered 2 bed properties when they only need one bedroom simply because there are very few 1 bed social housing flats available. Private and Social Housing tenants both face eviction if they sublet a 'spare' room.

When DH and I lived in London and were unemployed for a while we had a 2 bed flat for ourselves and DS and our entire rent was paid by HB. But there are NO private lets in my current home town which fall within the LHA HB cap. This city has the third highest property purchase and rental prices in the country after London and Edinburgh, but wages in the South West are amongst the lowest - average salary is around £21,000 pa, most full-time jobs pay less than £20,000 pa. It just stinks.

We have 20,00 students living in the city and there are no 'affordable' family-sized properties for rent any more because landlords can get far more money by letting a 3 bed house to 5 students at £350 per month each than to a family on an average wage.

Who will you vote for, Viv? I can't see any mainstream party doing anything for private renters.

I became very ill for two years and couldnt work. Ended up my flat was repossesed as HB would only help me with the interest.
It is right that the state shouldnt pay peoples mortgages for them. However my mortgage was £350 per month. Now I am living in the exact same property. The rent is £800 per month which untol the bedroom tax the state paid all of it. Now it pays £560 per month
The rent goes to a local landlord who has twenty other propertys in the area all paid for by HB. His morgages are being paid by the state. With a masssive profit that enables him to buy more houses that increase in value.
The state is paying for him to become rich.
I estimate landlord is recieving £20000 per month in state benefits.

Who really are the scroungers that are bleeding the country dry?

Wake up people.

'But this is never on the news.'

It's not because this government has a very vested interest in keeping housing prices as high as possible.

You are right of course lapsed. In the situation I was talking about earlier (6 people) they could downsize. There are also three 2 bed flats/houses available. Ones says definitely no dss. Not sure about the others.

I'm not even a private renter myself but I know quite a few people who are. Not sure who I'll vote for. Don't like any of them very much at the moment!

It's as if the only ones who matter are the people renting from the council. Nobody cares about private renters. It should be the same rule for both. Anything else is totally unfair.

Agreed

But lack of smaller properties make this a problem

"Sat 21-Sep-13 18:28:38

YANBU and illustrates why the removal of the unnecessary subsidy is required."

Council housing was never subsidised in fact it made a profit which was reinvested in new social housing

'I mean, presumably people in social housing are allowed to have a lodger/students to make up the shortfall if they want,'That is not true at all for many, many tenants in social housing, who are also forbidden from running a business from the home as well"

In fact since bedroom tax started, social hkusing tenants are allowed lodger in spare room to make up £14 shortfall and up to a certaun limit are allowed to keep any profit without losing benefit

Lapsed -

"Private renters have the freedom, in theory, to move to a smaller property so they won't have a 'spare' bedroom. People in social housing have to take what they are offered by the housing provider"

Sorry but that statement is complete tosh. People in social housing have the the complete same 'freedom' to move to a smaller property as private renters. Even easier for them in fact when you think about the pacticalities of money etc.

Sorry, but that statement is ignorant and complete bollocks

Op because you have a choice if you are entitled to lha rate for a two bed but find a cheap three bed you can rent a three bed with no penalty. You get a fixed amount of money and it is up to you what type of property you rent.
It is not the same as bedroom tax that is simply based on number of bedrooms regardless of the cost of rent.

Yanbu private renting is shite paying over the odds for a property our rent on 1 bed flat was £4 cheaper then our mortgage on 3 bed house it's riddiculous.

Then there's the ll's who don't fix repairs, don't tell you they are selling up so you find out from random ea letting themselves into your home.

I would vote for any party who would actually stand up for private renters rights. The way things are going if there isn't a crash the majority of people are going to be in private lets and they need more rights and protection

I meant in 20 years time

'In fact since bedroom tax started, social hkusing tenants are allowed lodger in spare room to make up £14 shortfall and up to a certaun limit are allowed to keep any profit without losing benefit'

Many, many of them are forbidden to take in lodgers at all in their tenancy agreements, much less make a profit by it.

See this is very interesting. In the area I live in 2bed LHA will easily get you a two bed place. The problem I have had letting is that people entitled to 2 bed LHA usually parents with one child want my 3 bed house.

Then I hear the complaint that the LHA doesn't cover their rent.

I have stopped being surprised when they find out benefit doesn't cover their rent. I make it plainly obvious when they come to view, that if they are only entitled to 2bed rent their will be a shortfall of about 90 a month. Given the situation of parent and child or parent and 2 children, I go for that situation instead.

And you actually take tenants in receipt of LHA and with children, holiday. A lot of places don't.

We ran into this in a rural area and didn't even use housing benefit (and no we could not 'just move' as DH has a job here and unable to change jobs easily without being jobless for a while, not an option). No children. It's how we wound up in HA housing.

I am definitely not allowed to take in a lodger.....even if I was affected (I'm not). My tenancy agreement says that I can't take in a lodger.