Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
pollypandemonium · 01/04/2013 16:03

Xenia the mouths of the poor need food not housing.

flatbread · 01/04/2013 16:03

I looked in gumtree for ads to find someone to clean my house. Almost everyone I contacted turned out to be Polish or from another Eastern European country.

Why weren't more local non-immigrant people advertising in gumtree for cleaning services? Afaik, it costs noting and you don't need anything but a bus fare to get to site.

Ffs, some of you need to stop being so defeatist about work. There is enough around, but it won't fall on your lap.

pollypandemonium · 01/04/2013 16:05

Nottingham council have reclassified all their 2bed properties to 1 beds. Very wise and the only way round having to deal with thousand of poor people desperately seeking ways to make up their reduced benefit.

FasterStronger · 01/04/2013 16:06

flatbread - ditto.

pollypandemonium · 01/04/2013 16:06

Flatbread - 400,000 jobs, 2.8M unemployed at the last count. Where are these jobs?

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 01/04/2013 16:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

flatbread · 01/04/2013 16:11

Polly, there are jobs for cleaners, painters, gardeners etc. I look in gumtree when I need help. Pretty much everyone (with one exception) who has gotten back to me has been Eastern European.

FasterStronger · 01/04/2013 16:12

polly - so in the last boom, why did EU people get jobs while UK people remained claiming?

plus, someone does not need full employment to get a job themselves.

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 01/04/2013 16:15

It is idiocy to claim there are jobs for all. Our whole bloody jobs market, with low wages topped up from your taxes and paid out as tax credits, is dependent on having a considerable number of people seeking work. If there were jobs for all, shock horror, wages may rise to a level which actually allows people to support their families.

MiniTheMinx · 01/04/2013 16:15

pollypandemonium

I wonder if other councils will follow suit and what about HAs, I can't quite see HAs agreeing to reclassify.

Leithlurker · 01/04/2013 16:16

Xenia: let me ask you what I asked up thread and got no response.

You have a go at Bob Crow (Ooo that just tripped of the keyboard so it did) for living in social housing whilst earning a large sum of money.

So why are you not buying a yacht, a plane, a super car, a horse (Or another horse even.), in short if you want to say how people spend their money no matter how they earn it, then it applies to you too. We get to tell you that you are a disgrace to capitalism because you do not have enough stuff, owe enough to banks, employ enough people.

pollypandemonium · 01/04/2013 16:17

Because EU people can be more flexible. They can move, they go home for Christmas and can live in cheaper accommodation as they have fewer belongings and their life here is seen a temporary.

Setting up as self employed is not easy. Working on the 'black' is against the law for a start and UK citizens often don't want to risk it.

MiniTheMinx · 01/04/2013 16:18

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue

well said. We had that situation in the 60s and because businesses started to feel that they were not making such high profit margins they stopped investing in manufacturing and in any sector that relied upon many labour hours. Thus it followed with stagflation. Not the fault of workers but greedy wealthy people who couldn't see past their own profit margins.

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 01/04/2013 16:19

Sorry Polly, I got you mixed up with another name! Shouldn't post in a rush\ rage Blush

pollypandemonium · 01/04/2013 16:20

Keithlurker don't rise to Xenia's bait. Not worth it.

Mini I guess HAs don't have to pick up the pieces resulting from this social welfare disaster that the councils will have to so there is less incentive but they tend to work in partnership with the councils so who knows.

It's bound to end up being against the law anyway (charging the bedroom tax) as was the Workfare tory slavery scheme.

Debs75 · 01/04/2013 16:21

Getting back to the 'bedroom tax'

I don't see it being that bad if it was properly instigated with proper rulings on who it applied to. From what I gather anyone on HB, working or not has to ensure they don't have any spare rooms. This means that children will share. Nothing too bad with that. IF you have a 'spare' room then you have to pay 14% of your rent or more if you have 2 spare rooms.
The reason behind this is to cut the benefit bill and free up larger housing.

This is where the scheme fails miserably. My 3 bed council house is £79 per week. If I go private it will be £100 per week and £85 for a 2 bed. So if I can't afford the council rent and there is no council 2 beds and I go private I could be costing the govt £6 per week more. Hardly saving them any money.

My neighbour who is in her 60's has a 3 bed the same size and lives on her own but she is exempt, as is around 1/3 of the elderly tenants in our street who are under occupying larger houses. When you add that to the working tenants not in need of HB who are under occupying so exempt from the tax there is not going to be many freed up houses.

My friend whose husband is disabled and needs a room of his own to sleep in is over occupying her house so is having some hb cut. He works and she is studying so she can work and lessen his workload which will give him a better quality of life. She has been told if you are married you share the same room yet if she shares his room she can't sleep due to the amount of medical equipment he needs.

So from just these few examples it is obvious that the bedroom tax is not going to work. It will cost the govt more in HB and there will be less large houses to go around as I bet you those who are almost at pension age will stump up the money somehow to hold on to their family homes long into their retirement.

I wish I knew how to make it work as I do agree that social housing needs looking at and changes made but this is not the way to do it

flatbread · 01/04/2013 16:23

Because EU people can be more flexible. They can move, they go home for Christmas and can live in cheaper accommodation as they have fewer belongings and their life here is seen a temporary

Well, so why can't local UK people be more flexible? Why can't they choose cheaper accommodation Hmm

Frankly, a BS entitlement attitude.

And it is VERY easy to become self-employed here, much easier than other European countries. So no excuses, I'm afraid.

pollypandemonium · 01/04/2013 16:25

That's OK Yellow I thoroughly agree with you. The immigrant thread touches on the low wage thing - it seems that the Tories are cottoning on to the fact that more immigrants = lower wages to pay out, so are promoting them as a benefit to the nation where before they were simply benefit scroungers and terrorists.

This should be known as the Government of Greed.

MiniTheMinx · 01/04/2013 16:25

Councils will have to deal with rising homelessness whereas HAs may just think going after people for unpaid rent and evicting them will free up housing. In the past here in the SE HAs have been quite keen to move people on because they then score points for housing people off the list. Musical houses! its a disgrace. People want social housing because it offers security of tenure, with stability so they can build their lives, look for work and it is better for communities not to be transient places.

FasterStronger · 01/04/2013 16:35

immigrants have always been a benefit to the UK. what are you on about polly?

Xenia · 01/04/2013 16:37

Plenty of those on benefits in theory don't work but have jobs for cash in hand. They aren't all idle. Some make a career of milking the benefits system.

Dawndonna · 01/04/2013 16:39

faster
most people do not trust the government to run the country

ALovelyBunchOfCoconuts · 01/04/2013 16:39

I haven't read all of this thread so apologies if anything I say has already been said.

We were offered a council house in November. We were offered three bedrooms. I have 4yo DD and 1yo DS. In the eyes of my local council they can share until DD is 10. When we were offered the house I asked why we'd been given three bedrooms instead of two when in their eyes we are only eligible for two. They said it was because there weren't any available and that we wouldn't be charged bedroom tax because both of the rooms would be used as the children aren't sharing. I've just last week received a letter stating we have to pay for DS' room even though it is occupied.

It's so annoying knowing that the council knew we'd have to pay the tax but misinformed us. It's also bloody annoying they are still handing out properties that are too big or families knowing full well these people are going to be charged. The smaller properties just aren't available.

Two separate family members live in two bedroom properties and are being charged the tax but when they ask to downsize they get told there aren't any one bedroom properties.

The whole thing is so contradictory. Angry

NicholasTeakozy · 01/04/2013 16:47

Some make a career of milking the benefits system.

Do you have a credible source for this arrant nonsense? Oh, I forgot, those who support these measures can't be bothered to back up their ridiculous bullshit with anything approaching a fact. You see it time and again on MN, neoliberals let their jaws flap until those who can see what is going to happen get disheartened and hide the threads.

FasterStronger · 01/04/2013 16:50

dawndonna - I know where labour are in the polls but it does not mean what you want it to.

YouGov President, Peter Kellner, writes a really interesting commentary about the results. you can subscribe to it here yougov.co.uk/news/2013/03/25/george-osbornes-b-rated-budget/

his email is every week or so.

it explains things like people trust Ed Balls even less than they like George Osbourne!