Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Bedroom tax will be costly disaster, says housing chief

999 replies

vivizone · 31/03/2013 06:51

I don't understand how they can implement it. When a council tenant signs the tenancy agreement, if bedroom tax is not mentioned, is it not illegal to implement it at a later date?

I don't see how it is enforceable. Let's say a tenant refuses to pay/can't pay. They then get evicted - wouldn't the council still be obliged to house them after eviction, especially if they have children?

The whole thing is a mess. Why so many changes all at the same time?!

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/30/bedroom-tax-disaster-housing-chief

Cost-cutting policy will push up benefit bill, cause social disruption and create widespread misery, say critics

Ministers came under new fire over benefit cuts last night as the independent body representing 1,200 English housing associations described the controversial bedroom tax as bad policy and bad economics that risks pushing up the £23bn annual housing benefit bill.

David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, said the tax would harm the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. It comes into force this week alongside a range of other tax and benefit changes.

"The bedroom tax is one of these once-in-a-generation decisions that is wrong in every respect," he said. "It's bad policy, it's bad economics, it's bad for hundreds of thousands of ordinary people whose lives will be made difficult for no benefit ? and I think it's about to become profoundly bad politics."

His intervention came as opponents launched nationwide protests against the tax, which will hit 660,000 households with each losing an estimated average of £14 a week.

Crowds gathered in London's Trafalgar Square yesterday to protest against the measure, and simultaneous protests were being held in towns and cities across the UK. One protester, Sue Carter, 58, from Waltham Forest, told the Observer: "I'm a working single parent with a tiny boxroom and now I'm faced with the choice between food, heat or paying the bedroom tax. People have looked after their homes, improved them ? why should they be turfed out?"

Under the scheme, which is introduced tomorrow, people in social housing with one spare bedroom will have their housing benefit cut by 14%, while those with two or more unoccupied rooms will see it slashed by 25%.

Ministers say the tax, which David Cameron calls the "spare room subsidy", will encourage people to move to smaller properties and save around £480m a year from the spiralling housing benefit bill. But critics such as the National Housing Federation (NHF) argue that as well as causing social disruption, the move risks increasing costs to taxpayers because a shortage of smaller social housing properties may force many people to downsize into the more expensive private rented sector.

The federation's warnings came as charities said the combination of benefit cuts and tax rises coming in from this week will amount to a £2.3bn hit on family finances.

Labour said analysis of official figures showed average families would be £891 worse off in the new tax year as the changes ? including those to tax credits and housing benefits ? begin to bite.

Research by the NHF says that while there are currently 180,000 households that are "underoccupying two-bedroom homes", there are far fewer smaller properties in the social housing sector available to move into. Last year only 85,000 one-bedroom homes became available. The federation has calculated that if all those available places were taken up by people moving as a result of the "bedroom tax", the remaining 95,000 households would be faced with the choice of staying put and taking a cut in income, or renting a home in the private sector.

If all 95,000 moved into the private sector, it says the cost of housing benefit would increase by £143m, and by millions more if others among the remaining 480,000 affected chose to rent privately.

As well as the move on spare bedrooms, council tax benefit will be replaced from this week by a new system that will be run by English local authorities but on 10% less funding. Pensioners will be protected under the changes but, as a result, it is feared there will be a bigger burden on poor working-age adults. Restrictions on the uprating of a number of welfare payments will also hit millions of households, homelessness charity Crisis has warned.

Chief executive Leslie Morphy said: "Our poorest households face a bleak April as they struggle to budget for all these cuts coming at once. People are already cutting back on the essentials of food and heating but there is only so much they can do.

"The result will be misery ? cold rooms, longer queues at food banks, broken families, missed rent payments and yet more people facing homelessness ? devastating for those directly affected, but bad for us all."

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: "Our welfare reforms will improve the lives of some of the poorest families in our communities, with universal credit simplifying the complex myriad of benefits and making three million people better off. And by next year, we will have taken two million of the lowest earners out of paying tax altogether."

Crisis argues that homelessness is set to rise dramatically. This winter has already seen a rise of 31% in the numbers of rough sleepers across the country and a 20% rise in people seeking help with homelessness from their local authority in the past two years, according to Crisis.

ChartiesCharities are also concerned that the government-funded network of homelessness advisers in England is to be scrapped. The team of regional advisers and rough sleeper and youth specialists which have provided councils with expert guidance on meeting statutory homelessness duties since 2007 will be disbanded just as the bedroom tax comes in. Also being scrapped are the crisis loans and community care grants which provided a lifeline for people in financial crisis who needed essentials when moving to a new home.

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls said: "This is the week when the whole country will see whose side David Cameron and George Osborne are really on and who is paying the price for their economic failure."

OP posts:
YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 31/03/2013 17:12

Oh. My. Word.

moondog · 31/03/2013 17:14

Ah, Mont, found it and yes, I did read it. Duh! Thanks. Smile
An intersting read

IneedAsockamnesty · 31/03/2013 17:17

Seriously!!!

MiniTheMinx · 31/03/2013 17:18

Do we all now have to define what disability is? nah.

I would suggest that shelter is a necessity, like food, water, warmth. Why should we have to justify why people need to be housed. How strange that anyone should think housing is a luxury.

MiniTheMinx · 31/03/2013 17:22

Moondog,

I have heard that the East is the up and coming place for work. Living standards are on the rise............I'll even chip in a few quid for your ticket Smile

moondog · 31/03/2013 17:23

Of course you do.
How else do you decide who needs help and who doesn't.
It's standard practice.
And who is to say that I or another member of my family is not disabled?
Disabled people don't have to be treated like idiots and patronised and petted and protected like pets. I know that-having worked with them for years.
It's so irritating, this faux outrage on MN-people falling over themselves to prove their caring credentials. It stifles measured debate.
I'm off to enjoy my roast.
Keep bleating.

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs · 31/03/2013 17:27

VivienneMary - I AM severely overcrowded. And WON'T be affected by this bedroom tax, as due to the ages of my DC's, I will still be left on the waiting list for a 4-bed.

Doesn't mean that I can't empathise with those that WILL be affected, or see the perfect shitstorm of homelessness that is coming to the UK.

I'm NOT 'alright Jack'. Even though this particular benefit change will not affect me for a number of years, by which time I will happily downsize.

This policy is STILL wrong without either Rent Controls on Private LL's put in place simultaneously, and/or a MASSIVE Social Housing building programme that identifies which types of properties are lacking in any given area, and building enough of them.

infamouspoo · 31/03/2013 17:28

My definition isnt important. Its defined by law in the UK which you can easily look up.
Many disabled people are also classed as 'vunerable' (also lookeable upeable) and in need of care, equipment, adaptations etc. Yet onto the street with them. Many will be in work as we know 80% of housing benefit claiments actually work.
The reason I mentioned disabled people was because from tomorrow they will be hit by multiple cuts will will lead them to be more likely to be able to find that extra money to pay the housing benefit cut and thus more likely to end up homeless. As a disabled or vunerable person many will be less able to change their work/home/life circumstances than a same age peer in order to cope or pay.
Yet unlike pensioners, they will not be exempt. The reason pensioners are exempt is often cited that they are on a fixed income and unable to change their circumstances. Ahem.

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs · 31/03/2013 17:28

Moondog, rents may fall over time, but where does that leave the REAL PEOPLE involved in this situation until that point?

Either in poverty, having to choose between food, heat or rent...or homeless.

infamouspoo · 31/03/2013 17:29

But Mini is right. Housing shouldnt be considered a luxury. Is it really acceptable to see families living on the streets like you do in Mumbai or Nairobi? Is that ok?

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 31/03/2013 17:31

Yeah, cos we're the horrible ones for giving a toss about other people.

It is not faux outrage, and you know it.

It is absolutely not patronising to care about other humans. If charities representing those affected are campaigning on this issue, I am patronising no one by supporting their cause.

Dawndonna · 31/03/2013 17:33

Moondog Do come and live here and look after the disabled people in this house. On second thoughts, I don't like your attitude and it's not one I would want presented to my dcs.
Whilst there are many disabled people capable of working, there are many who aren't. What is your point, because as far as I can see, you are bleating and are yet to make some sort of valid point.

Leithlurker · 31/03/2013 17:34

Gosh I am so glad that as a person with an impairment cos like you know disability is a social construct, it is what society does to people not the medical related issues that they have, I would probably have had to kill you moondog.

It is not that you are patronising far from it, you just do not see the person. Your spot on any number of your family may have a physical impairment, or a learning disability, and in fact with rates of mental ill health at around 1 in four of the population it is very likely a member of your family has a "disability" That does not mean they all require adapted houses, but it sure as hell means they will have more issues with getting a job, working through the forms and the bureaucracy, more or less need for space, more need to live in a certain area. You know what moondog I don't need to tell you all this because you work with the disabled.

MiniTheMinx · 31/03/2013 17:36

Actually something has just occurred to me, thanks CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs Smile

The reason money can be found to subsidise the private developers by government underwriting mortgages (Osborne the budget) is because the tax payer shovels money into the economy on the basis that the net winners are banks/developers. The government could invest in building social housing and shovel investment in that would kick start the economy but it won't. So the reason must surely be that any tax payer money used for investment into growth is always made on the basis that, the profits are privatised.

They simply won't invest when the result is a rise in GDP and tax receipts and wealth creation in the real economy, only where the profits can be privatised. ie hang the poor and the tax payer out to dry whilst lining their mates pockets.

IneedAsockamnesty · 31/03/2013 17:47

Ok so because some people are utter twats can we accept that for the reasons of this thread and this thread alone that the disabled people we are talking about are those who have disabilities that require them to have additional space what ever that disability may be.

You know all those ones who are not exempt from this rule.

Ad FYI those with disabled children are not exempt they will still have the deduction but can be made exempt at the LA's discretion or can claim a none guaranteed additional 'make up' the short fall payment from the DHF.

Leithlurker · 31/03/2013 17:48

If you wanted a slightly more jaundice view mini, you could cut that down and just say that only investment that provides wealth for private individuals and corporations is allowed. Plus of course anything that helps to prop up the broke international banking and finance industries.

MoreBeta · 31/03/2013 17:53

Govt policy on housing in this country is an utter mess.

We are giving subsidies to developers in the last budget so young people can afford to buy a house but meanwhile too politically cowardly to ask old people in social housing to move to smaller more suitable accomodation so a family can move in.

My Grandmother lived in a council house for 40 years. Grandad died and she eventually went into a home. My Aunt immediatley moved in to my Grandmothers council house with her partner (ie she had a key and just moved in without permission) and will live there until she dies.

That is a two bed council house suitable for a young family that will be blocked for 75 years by two childless couples.

Sorry but old people need to be forced to move out of family sized social houses before we penalise other people.

Madness!

MiniTheMinx · 31/03/2013 17:59

and thank you moondog Confused from your link

"What is more unique about Britain is that we expect rising housing costs to power our economy...........The entire British economy became built around servicing ever-rising housing costs. By early 2008, another £20 billion each month went on mortgage lending, while of the £10 billion lent for corporate ?investment?, much was tied up in property speculation. At least 66 per cent of our lending was going to a large lending bubble. The real figure was probably more than 80 per cent"

Of course those huge figures speak only of the lending not of the total debt. So it would be fair to say that no investment into job creation and a huge debt overhang and burden of debt whilst the banks simply hoover money up. Well that was their plan but of course we all know it failed when we had to bail them out.

I wonder how the economy would have looked if the figures were reversed and jobs had been created. And I wonder how it would look if the investment had been made into social housing......maybe we wouldn't be here discussing this economic depression???????

BumpingFuglies · 31/03/2013 18:01

How is forcing old people out of their homes any where near compassionate? The way this is going, people in social housing will be playing musical houses every few years.

As others are saying, the solution is to invest more in social housing, not kick people out of their homes. Note the word "home".

I hope this never happens to you or any of your loved ones MoreBeta

TheHumancatapult · 31/03/2013 18:02

yup few year down line when my dc older and they hit me with it .im just going say yes downsize me

but here sting it will cost a lot to fully adapt a house for me

rhondajean · 31/03/2013 18:06

More beta, there is obviously more to that story than you know as people aren't just allowed to circumvent the waiting lists like that.

Even where people have lived with a parent who has died, there are still processes to decided whether they can be granted the tenancy.

You cannot simply let yourself in because you have the key and decide to stay on.

TheHumancatapult · 31/03/2013 18:07

oh and officially im overcrowded to by thier calculations i should have 5 bedroom not 3 and i can still sympathise

before anyone jumps up and down about senses of entitlement .i was working and paying rent private and married then ds3 was born with sn then my marriage failed and then had accident

signs up for goat

Darkesteyes · 31/03/2013 18:08

My DH is partially disabled arthritis and advanced ischemic heart disease with breathing problems.
We live in a one bedroom flat and he sleeps in the living room.
I think by the sounds of things we may be affected when Universal Credit comes in (he is 63 and i am approaching 40.) we are on Pension Credit. So im guessing with us the UC will also be replacing the Pension Credit as well as the HB.

MoreBeta · 31/03/2013 18:10

Bumping - sorry but this is my Aunt we are talking about.

She and her partner do not NEED two bedrooms and neither did my Grandparents. It is social housing which in my book means you move when your children leave home. You should not be allowed to 'grow old' in housing that is far too big for your NEED and expect tax payers to pay while other people who have serious NEED have to live in overcrowded accomodation.

It is not about lack of compassion. Where is the compassion for people with young children living in crowded flats while one old man my MIL lives near rattles around in a 3 bed council house on his own? It is totally unsuitable for his physical needs and yet he just likes living there. He should have moved out of it 40 years ago when his children left home.

Tortington · 31/03/2013 18:11

the people who need to move - who are ocupying the larger houses are older people

they are not affected because they vote - I want to say 'and they die more easily which would be bad press.' but google 'callums list' and you will see that deaths with a contributable factor being the change in welfare are on the rise and no one gives a shit.

tories sold off social housing

now they are punishing FUCKING PUNISHING those who are in social housing by announcing that suddenly there are 'spare' rooms.

then those who can't get a council house (because of afforementioned tory policies) suddenly buy into the tory spin "yeah spare rooms yeah i can't get a house becuase of all the people lounging around in their spare rooms"

no.

There is no social housing becuase

  1. the tories sold it off

  2. New Labour sold their working class roots, turned into tories and didn't regulate the banks (the tories also did not want regulation - remember that the next time their spouting at labour MPs on question time)

  3. both parties have allowed big developers to sit on land until the economy picks up

  4. Both parties cut investment into building social housing (loans for building etc)

  5. no building

and so the poor fight against the working poor and no one notices things like council tax hikes and the backdoor privatisation of the NHS happening at the same time.

Please do not buy into this rhetoric, instead of thinking i i i, think - what will be left for your children - no nhs, no pension, no social housing should your children lose their homes in the a boom bust cycle in 20 years.

there is a myth that people on benefits are squandering resources sat on their arses all day.

the truth is rich people and rich politicians are screwing everyone.

If you tolerate this, then your children will be next.