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:
MiniTheMinx · 31/03/2013 23:08

The problem the torries have with social housing is that investing in building would put ordinary people into work and no money in the hands of their friends at the bank.

charlearose · 31/03/2013 23:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

rhondajean · 31/03/2013 23:39

Charlea.

One person on their own would not have been able to take a three bed tenancy for years now.

Many has and las actively promoted people taking two beds due to the lack of one beds.

If your cousins son was allowed a three bed tenancy there could not have been excessive demand at that time for a three bed tenancy.

It may seem to you people waltz in and out of tenancies but I can assure you it's far more complicated than that.

If your mil has a social rented property and is not living there,report her.they will remove her from the tenancy quickly enough if it's an aband.

If it is her home, then she was classed as in more need of the house than others. So what it took her 6 months.

charlearose · 01/04/2013 00:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jojo2013 · 01/04/2013 00:59

There was a program on the TV recently called rich and on benefits, it followed OAP,s and what benefits they get and half didn't even know what they were getting!
Peter Stringfellow ( multi-millionaire ) tried to send his back once and it took the DWP 3months just to reply, one rather well heeled elder statesman said they ( those dishing the hardship out).....the government would never have a go at the Blue rinse brigade for a fear of the loss of support for the coalition
You will all have your say in 2015........ Mum,s unite

jojo2013 · 01/04/2013 01:08

Sorry forgot to say the bedroom tax is another disguise for Mrs Thatcher,s [dredded POLL TAX,only called a different name by a different mob, same party more of the same assault upon assault upon us mums and the poorest in society.
We need more social housing across the whole spectrum 1-4 bed properties, time we invested in housing and not some bonkers nuclear submarines!! Angry

DHPWontSolveMuch · 01/04/2013 02:02

I work in Housing Benefit, and for the last five years have been administering DHP (Discretionary Housing Payments) for a major local authority.

This year we have been given enough money to pay approximately 10% of the social housing cases. It is absolutely heartbreaking work.

We are prioritising adapted properties. If a room has had a lift put in, we are sending staff out to see if it can still be considered a room. If we don't think it can, we ask the HA to consider reducing the number of rooms they count. This means that they can charge less rent, so they don't like doing it, but it is possible.

If you need an overnight carer, and that overnight carer does not live with you, then you are entitled to one extra room under the HB regulations. (nothing to do with DHP, and you will get in on an ongoing basis) The care must be regular and ongoing. The definition of this seems to vary wildly. If you think you are entitled to that extra room, contact your Local Authority now and tell them so.

Next we are going to prioritise families with children who will become 10 or 16, and be entitled to an extra room in the next six months. We will pay these to prevent them from losing a tenancy in the short-term. We are also protecting almost pensioners. If you think you are in this position, I would make a request for DHP. If you are refused speak to your Housing Association and see if they will agree for you to pay an amount (say £5 a week) towards the shortfall, so that your arrears don't build up too much, and you can pay the rest off later.

The cases that we see are almost all heartbreaking. There are disabled adults; disabled children; people who have lost children, but preserved their bedroom as a shrine; people whose children have been taken into care, and without a stable home they will never get them back; people who are dying; who are caring for the sick and the dying (so can't go and get a job); people who have fled domestic abuse and taken the first property they were offered while they tried to rebuild their lives; cases where sexual abuse carried out by a sibling, so the children cannot possibly share a room, and more sad, sad stories.

We have to pick through these and choose the 10% we think are the most deserving, while the government bangs on about how they have increased DHP, and that will make everything ok.

It's not ok.

And for the people saying that benefits paid monthly is a good idea, the major software systems are not capable of doing this at the moment, as they can't cope with the months being different lengths (so they pay out less in 28 day Feb than they would in 31 day March). They won't get that sorted in a rush.

Tasmania · 01/04/2013 03:29

Who ever said this was a bedroom "tax". Despite a lot of things being called "tax" these days, you can only really be taxed if you have some sort of income you earned for yourself. Anything else is a freebie... and as they say, it seems hard to get used to a life without freebies once you were able to enjoy them!!

I understand people having accidents, and people with SERIOUS disabilities. They should be supported. However, why on Earth does someone on benefits have more kids without knowing how to afford them? I think about that constantly, and not being on benefits, you HAVE to. Why on Earth should I pay for the upkeep of a non-working single mum on benefits with 3 kids from several dads?

And if happymumofone is right, and there are people on MN telling those who can't afford more children to have them because one more isn't really that bad on the wallet... whoever those people are should be ashamed of themselves.

It is obvious New Labour mollycuddled a big part of the population. That party was good for nothing but kiss people's arses - whether it be a certain segment of the country's population or George W. Bush. It was New Labour that got us into this terrible economic mess. The Tories/LibDems just inherited the crap, and it is rumoured that Labour were not that disappointed sitting this one out - as they are essentially making the other parties clean up after them. We now still have to live with the consequences of that party's actions.

Oh, and whoever complained about the Tories not turning the economy around in the few years they've been in power - that person obviously does not know much about economics. It takes a LONG time for economic policies to bear fruit. One of the problems they have in the Third World is that much-needed new economic policies are not popular, and should it be a democracy, the public may just vote for another party before the policies can deliver. This goes back and forth, and eventually not much is achieved. Of course, lack of education and thus, not being able to wait for long-term rewards also plays a role.

The welfare system as it is is unsustainable. Who should pay for it? Does the Bank of England grow money trees? Some people are trying to be so politically correct, and yet, all they do is moan without offering a solution at all...

aufaniae · 01/04/2013 06:56

DHPWontSolveMuch thank you for posting, it's very useful to get an insight from the front line. I don't envy you your job right now, it must be terribly hard to be in the position you find yourself in.

Tasmania have you read the post directly above yours?

FasterStronger · 01/04/2013 09:06

DHP - I am not quite sure I understand your post: do you mean there is not enough DHP so to cover all disabled people with adapted houses?

MoreBeta · 01/04/2013 09:07

What I had not realised is that this reform is not being introduced to the whole country. Only certain areas at first as an experiment.

It is going to be chaos trying to run two different systems in different areas.

Leithlurker · 01/04/2013 09:25

Faster tronger that IS exactly what DHP is saying. It is what has been said for months by many, many others. DHP is also a one time only deal. If you get it, you can only get it for a time limited period, and when the DHP pot is gone, it will never be topped up.

FasterStronger · 01/04/2013 09:31

Leith - I am not so sure as she then says 'Next we are going to prioritise families with children who will become 10 or 16'.

which is why I asked.

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs · 01/04/2013 09:31

Thing is, certainly in lots of the SE, this passing the Tenancy if a home on just CAN'T happen any more. The majority of Social Housing here is now rented from Housing Associations. Who don't allow for succession of tenancies, in most cases.

So that's an aside here to the true discussion about bedroom tax, surely?

Leithlurker · 01/04/2013 10:00

I will not speak for DHP, but I imagine she was referring to the fact that, unlike child benefit their is no automatic entitlement. So The process is not to go through all those already known to the councils, it IS that people need to make a claim. The problem is, that the government have spent virtually nothing on advertising the DHP and the councils have spent about the same. It is also not the case that once you find out that the DHP exists and then apply that you then get it.
Councils and the people like DHP are using a means test, a pretty harsh and unforgiven means test, which from my knowledge forces someone to list every single expenditure to justify how poor they are. This means that some of the DHP will be left toy roll on to other categories such as people with children.

Leithlurker · 01/04/2013 10:01

Sorry I meant to address the last to Faster.

williaminajetfighter · 01/04/2013 10:02

this thread is getting so whingey! I really think people have to go back to basics and ask, why should the government provide or subsidize housing for anyone aside from the MOST at risk? Why do people assume the government should build houses for people and charge far less than market rates to rent properties. Why? Is that what a government is really supposed to do?

Listening to people on here and the tone of entitlement is baffling. In most countries adults have to find their way and not rely on government to provide for some of the basic elements of living.

The amount people are willing to be in the pocket of government here is absurd. I know - why don't people work part-time for a local authority, then live in local authority housing, use local authority day care for when they're working, get housing benefit, tax credits, other benefits and on their day off go to some local authority funded council project day out. Can you say communism??! Honestly, the mind baffles. I cannot say that we are in any way encouraging a culture of independence.

Dawndonna · 01/04/2013 10:13

Tasmania

  1. Thatcher put a tax on benefits.
  2. Your definition of serious disability may not be anothers. Are you a Doctor?
  3. Despite being in a similar position, Germany and France are not heading for a triple dip recession. I do know a bit about economics and Osbourne has got it wrong, as every banker, business and economist is telling him at the moment.
  4. Why pick on the welfare. The rich are getting rich, the poor, poorer as is usual with Tory governments. The same cuts are not happening across the board, eg why the fuck are we paying for trident when people, yep, real people, many with disabilites, are being forced into homelessness?
  5. Read the post above you.

William
The government wouldn't allow a culture of independence, but I imagine a bit of independent thinking will result in riots in the not too distant future. Oh, and as pointed out to others without empathy, the Daily Mail website is that way>>>

Leithlurker · 01/04/2013 10:15

Ok Willie lets go back to the start. Thousands of men and women died, in fact volunteered to die in fighting for a better fairer world. That is the context that beverage was working on.

Before that guess what, many thousands of men and women died of poverty and lack of health care. Liberals in 1910 changed the "let the poor die" outlook by bringing in the for runner of the welfare state because that is what a civilised country does it looks after people.

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 01/04/2013 10:19

William, yeah, IMO that is what a government is supposed to do, because I want my government to spend taxes raising living standards and cutting inequality, because societies that do that are nicer places to live, with lower crime, higher life expectancy and better prospects for their citizens. In short, I prefer a good society.

FasterStronger · 01/04/2013 10:21

Leith people need to apply for disability benefits because (1) they need to identify as needing them (2) the govt IT systems cannot identify them so I don't think the CB analogy works

TheHumancatapult · 01/04/2013 10:28

oh and Disability ie DLa is not handed out by filling a form i had to provide reports and they contacted my Dr to check everything .Thought lets get that out before people say easy to get

people mix up incapacity which yes gp can sign easy and DLa which not easy

expatinscotland · 01/04/2013 10:35

' I really think people have to go back to basics and ask, why should the government provide or subsidize housing for anyone aside from the MOST at risk? Why do people assume the government should build houses for people and charge far less than market rates to rent properties. Why? Is that what a government is really supposed to do?'

Exactly! So why is this government subsidising people to buy new-build houses slapped up by their mates in development? Why did their policies allow the cost of housing to rise so high they have been lining the pockets of BTL landlords for years, effectively buying those people a free house courtesy of the taxpayer? The system of private renting here, too, encouraged many to over-stretch themselves financially to banks so they could 'buy' a home and not risk being moved on every six months.

Why, why prey tell has the expenses system also purchased homes for MPs, and still does, at the expense of the taxpayer?

And why, most of all, are so many sheeple instead turning their ire at poor people in council homes instead of at those who are truly the root of the problem?

retrorita · 01/04/2013 10:50

why should the government provide or subsidize housing for anyone aside from the MOST at risk? Why do people assume the government should build houses for people and charge far less than market rates to rent properties. Why? Is that what a government is really supposed to do?

No, but there are things the government can do to help people help themselves, but they refuse to do anything other than push through Tory ideology.

Making long term private renting more secure and affordable would mean less need for social housing.

Raise the NMW so people can afford to live without claiming.

Its easier to blame the poor though rather than look at the circumstances that trap people.

Dawndonna · 01/04/2013 11:02

Thatcher messed up the rent system with the 1989 housing act. The tories at that point felt that the landlords didn't have enough protection.
Thatcher messed up the local authority housing by selling it off and only allowing the L.A. to keep 28% of the capital receipts, so, no money available to purchase land or build more social housing.
Why should we have social housing?
Because it's the sign of a civilised society, the sign of a society that looks after folk and ensures that they are safe, warm etc.
Making long term private renting more secure and affordable would mean that all those lovely rich, Tory landlords would complain, ergo, ain't going to happen!