Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
skinnywitch · 01/04/2013 18:01

Yes, we know they're pensioners sock but we are puzzled by the claims on here that this group are Tory voters.

rhondajean · 01/04/2013 18:01

www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/mar/13/the-spirit-level

This is the best quick explanation I can find about why policies like this are bad for our entire society.

marjproops · 01/04/2013 18:02

im having to downsize. when DC and i moved in the 'spare room' was classed as a boxroom, not a bedroom. suddenly its a bedroom.

looking for a 2 bed house. the rent is more than the 3 bed we have already, and now i get a cap on benefits (and those who havent heard my oft repeated story, im a fulltime carer for a severly disabled child and so need HB and carers/disabilty allowance etc etc).

This Gov were supposed to be punishing the benefit CHEATS, not the genuinly needy, and now ive been slapped with council tax and bedroom tax (BTW before DC i worked fulltime and paid my taxes etc)

meanwhile the Gov dont stick their hands in their own pockets and take cuts themselves, (isnt Scameron underoccupying then in downing street?! all those rooms....) and the Queen Grin (but serious grin).

and now apparantly the mobility allowance has changed and i wont even be getting help with THAT1..I never swear. effing effing rich b* . the kings are in the counting house counting out their money....

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs · 01/04/2013 18:03

Also, that figure of 2.8 million unemployed does NOT include those that are currently on 'workfare' programmes who are STILL GETTING JSA. Yet they are counted as 'employed' for the purposes of massaging bringing down the unemployment figure.

There are actually many more than that 2.8 million unemployed chasing just a few thousand jobs. Of which many are only PT...

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs · 01/04/2013 18:04

Applauds retortia for pointing out that those currently on benefits just CANNOT accept a NMW zero hours contract job.

They WILL end up homeless if they do.

MiniTheMinx · 01/04/2013 18:04

Sockreturningpixie, that was in reply to xenia and self employment.

IneedAsockamnesty · 01/04/2013 18:06

Who claimed that?

Its only been stated that on the whole pensioners vote more than other groups and the current gov is frightened of pissing them off. That statement would apply to pretty much any political party.

rhondajean · 01/04/2013 18:09

I don't think it's because they are Tory voters they're untouched.

I think it's because there's a good story which evokes public sympathy in an
Old person who has worked all their life being forced out of their family home (or dying because the turn the heating off/don't buy food to pay Thr extra rent) whereas for some reason, the same thing happening to a younger single parent doesn't evoke the same sympathy because they after all they could WORK couldn't they (even though they may already be etc).

Pensioners, like any other age group, are likely to be voting for a variety of political parties.

Also, I think we need to focus on the lib dems a bit more as they are facilitating this entire thing. Not just bask the Tories.

Xenia · 01/04/2013 18:15

Dark, what is my supposed inconsistency between my Sep 012 post you give and now? I think immigrants work very hard. I haven't written about immigrants on this thread.

Darkesteyes · 01/04/2013 18:17

"This Gov were suppossed to be punishing the benefit CHEATS not the genuinely needy"

Marj a lot of people including working class people have bought into that rhetoric at their own risk and cost.

Its a Tory gov They see ALL benefit claimants as the lowest of the low. When will people get that FFS. And Labour are the same.
Look what happened when the Gov changed the law recently retrospectively after the workfare ruling and Labour agreed with them. I have never voted Tory in my life and i will never vote Labour again.

skinnywitch · 01/04/2013 18:18

Who you gonna vote for then, UKIP? Grin

Darkesteyes · 01/04/2013 18:19

Inconsistency no 1 posted by Xenia.

Plenty of those on benefits in theory don't work but have jobs for cash in hand. They aren't all idle.

Dawndonna · 01/04/2013 18:20

I don't think many of us will be voting for UKIP Skinny. Particularly not those of us with disabled family members.

Darkesteyes · 01/04/2013 18:20

Inconsistency no 2 posted by Xenia.

than the fat lumpen negative white benefit claimants of the UK.

Darkesteyes · 01/04/2013 18:21

I would never vote UKIP either.

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 01/04/2013 18:21

Pensioners are a massive lobby group, comparatively powerful due to high voting levels, it isn't so much that the individual pensioners in a council house will vote Tory, rather that large numbers of pensioners as a whole do vote Tory & this group is vital to the party's electoral chances.

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs · 01/04/2013 18:23

There are very few (and I really do mean few) FT jobs that do not have zero hours contracts these days. At least not for those without qualifications or previous experience.

While your friends may have managed to get FT jobs with hours stated on their contract, skinny, I'm willing to bet that they got C+ at GCSE or prior equivalent, probably A levels, and possibly even degrees.

Their situation is far different to someone who leaves school with no GCSE's above D grade, possibly even no GCSE's, no specific skills, no A levels, no degree, looking for whatever they can find locally.

They are the people looking for NMW work, that more often than not is on zero hours contract, so you might have 35 hours one week, and just two the following week.

They wouldn't be able to survive on £12.38 for an entire week, would they? Not when the previous week, a 'good' week, they only earnt what is the NMW. They wouldn't have had anything 'saved up' to see then through the lean times, as they are already ON the limit financially working the full hours they have been offered...

Some if you really have no clue what goes on beneath your ivory towers, do you?!

I suggest you educate yourself.

It's rarely as simple as 'go out and get a job'.

One of my friends has just come out of an abusive relationship. She had to give up her PT job (that she worked in right up till her due date with her last baby) because he refused to have their 5yo and 2yo while she worked every day. (Hours split over 5 days).

He took her to court, and the shared care court order prevents her from finding any sort of meaningful work. Yet as they have been awarded care (and therefore Child Benefit) of one of their DC's each (by the courts), he got the baby, she got the 5yo.

So HE doesn't have to find work. However, she needs to find work that fits in between 9am and 12pm, and she gets a block of time from 4pm to 6pm. So yes, 5 hours a day - but that involves travelling time for her older DD's school run (Ex's SD so not involved in contact, her father not involved), plus the time is split each day.

So 3 hours minus travel time in morning, and 2 hours minus travel time in afternoon - but she also has a 10yo to sort childcare for...and she lives 40 mins from nearest available childcare, by bus (after school club is at primary school, not her nearest as has moved since, her 5yo attends a school closer to her new home, that her father takes her to most days, on the other day, I take her 10yo!)

Exactly HOW is she meant to find a job that fits in with her childcare responsibilities as set out in a court order the court won't vary despite her explanations?!

It's NOT as cut and dried as 'benefit claimants are all feckless and lazy and should just get up and work..."

IneedAsockamnesty · 01/04/2013 18:24

Xenia

I rarely comment now on your posts on threads like these because I think you get a harder time than other posters who post almost the same stuff you do.

But why the obsession with poor people being fat? You do mention it a lot its really very offensive and its not even true.

MiniTheMinx · 01/04/2013 18:25

www.socialistparty.org.uk/

Labour lost the plot a long time ago.

Darkesteyes · 01/04/2013 18:26

And the use of the word white used in the context Xenia used it in is racist.

Mrsdavidcaruso · 01/04/2013 18:26

Sorry Dark WHITE benefits claimants?????? re you seriously suggesting that only WHITE people claim benefits? I am sure there are many lumpen black and asian benefit claimants to say otherwise is actually a tad racist

rhondajean · 01/04/2013 18:29

Couthy, I'm waiting for someone to ask what she was doing having children with those men in the first place now...

Would that be full house?

Mrsdavidcaruso · 01/04/2013 18:29

Sorry Dark read your thread again it wasn't you who said that - I wish we could have a delete button on this board or at least an edit button - sorry again

Darkesteyes · 01/04/2013 18:29

Caruso read the thread properly. It is copied and pasted from what Xenia said I am challenging her on it. FFS!

Darkesteyes · 01/04/2013 18:29

No probs Sorry Thanks