Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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 21:49

No, I haven't I've made that clear. I've always worked from 14, as my children will ( from 16). I want them to hav ea CV which shows a strong work ethic so work they will, NMW jobs, bars, Maccy D's, whatever.
I didn't have a car until mid 20's so I bussed, cycled or walked. Still cycle a great deal, basket on the front!

skinnywitch · 01/04/2013 21:50

got lucky with a bit of hard work

What's your definition of this? Do you/have you ever worked 7 days, 18 hours a day for years? Hmm?

skinnywitch · 01/04/2013 21:51

And so they should because businesses rely on customers and without them can not survive.

Depends on who your customers are, doesn't it?

rhondajean · 01/04/2013 21:56

Erm no?

VictorTango · 01/04/2013 21:57

Skinny you change your story so often its impossible to keep up.

flatbread · 01/04/2013 21:59

I think people with physical disabilities should be exempt.

But if you have a child who has insomnia, that is not a good enough reason for needing an extra room. Seriously, some common sense would go a long way.

For those who are physically able, stop moaning about how difficult it is to move. It is a defeatist attitude.

All I am hearing is 'we can't do...'

Can't work for Tesco
Can't clean houses
Can't find a job
Can't start a business
Can't be bothered to achieve at school or after 'cas of family background
Can't move house

For some people, it seems, anything except a life-long secured house and benefits is too much effort.

VictorTango · 01/04/2013 22:01

I actually think most people on this thread do work flatbread. They are trying to explain to others why some find it hard to do things like 'start your own business'.

Mrsdavidcaruso · 01/04/2013 22:05

Redbindy - thats not what we are discussing here we are talking about HB being curtailed for people having more space than they need, in my Dads case he still works and pays tax at age 82 he does not get HB - so where is the saving to the benefit system if he is forced to move out.

In fact apart from his pension which he worked over 60 years to get and still gets TAXED on he had never claimed anything other then Family allowance which everyone got, never been on the dole and even paid for my Mums funeral last year without state help, so why should he be penalised for being a working class man who like 1000s of other working class people never ever got the chance to buy his own property when he was younger.

MiniTheMinx · 01/04/2013 22:06

Yes I have worked, I work now, what a strange question. I used to work 80 plus hours a week. Maybe you think I claim benefits? I never have. Lucky really.

And so they should because businesses rely on customers and without them can not survive.

Depends on who your customers are, doesn't it?

What a contradiction.

That's a very odd business then.

twofingerstoGideon · 01/04/2013 22:06

I think you're right, Victor. There's so often an assumption that people who support the less fortunate and can see the effect of these cuts don't work themselves. I find that quite objectionable to be honest.

ttosca · 01/04/2013 22:13

For some people, it seems, anything except a life-long secured house and benefits is too much effort.

Who are these people? The Royal Family, you mean? Ian Duncan Smith? The cabinet of millionaires?

Dawndonna · 01/04/2013 22:14

Do you/have you ever worked 7 days, 18 hours a day for years? Hmm?

Yes. The government pay me £53 quid a week.

ttosca · 01/04/2013 22:55

Ian Duncan Smith, living off the taxpayer:

tinypic.com/view.php?pic=264m2oi&s=6

PeneloPeePitstop · 01/04/2013 23:25

18 hour days, 7 days a week

Yep, done that. When I was a HR tax payer and home owner. Yet I STILL ended up on benefits in social housing.

Not everyone fits the stereotype, I know my worth to society. Nine grand a week. I don't get that, I don't mind that, but I will always fight the people on here who call me a scrounger because of things that have happened in my life. Not choices, not anything that insurance could have helped with.

Funny how despite me stating the above several times on this thread it's not been acknowledged once by the neoliberals. The fact I have lost everything I worked for, not chosen to live this wy yet that is how my life panned out.

Is that because they are afraid that if it happened to me it could happen to them?

PeneloPeePitstop · 01/04/2013 23:26

Oh and too true, Dawndonna. I'm now doing 24/7 365 days a year for far less than the £9,000 a week value of my labour.

lottieandmia · 02/04/2013 00:09

flatbread - are you saying only physical disabilities require state support? I hope not. My dd has severe autism - she needs 24 hour care pretty much. She is not ever going to be able to work - she can't talk or do anything for herself.

IneedAsockamnesty · 02/04/2013 00:22

Flatbread,

I may have missed it but who apart from you is talking about a child with insomnia?

I would be quite interested in asking them if the insomnia is a symptom of another medical issue or disability. How the insomnia is exhibited in the child.
Is it co existing with other sleep related issues. What impact it has on the household. What support for the child has been put in place in order to safeguard them whilst the household shuts down for the night.if they can evidence the extent of the issue.and who outside of the household is aware of the issue. As well as a few other things before I could even consider if I felt it was a genuine reason or not.

(Not that anything is up to me but we are talking about what we think about it)

It is my understanding that genuine long term insomnia with children that is not the result of another medical condition or disability is fairly rare granted my understanding is based solely on my own children and I am not a doctor. 3 of my children have had insomnia that started in childhood 1 as a result and symptom of PTSD after a accident and this resulted in extreme night terrors when they did go to sleep but due to the nature of the condition medication that had a side effect of making them sleep was used in combo with other types of support so it was resolved after about 2 years the night terrors caused more of a problem for anyone with a room nearby than the insomnia did.
However 2 have it due to ASD and the associated issues with it are loud striming uncontrollable body jerks and vocal noises as well as a few other things that would be considered to be legit reasons by anyone who had ever seen or heard it these 2 will never improve will never get better and are quite likely to always have issues at night.

Knowing stuff like that I'm pretty sure I wouldn't begrudge anybody who was in social housing from requesting that their situation was assessed for exemption.

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 07:27

90% of the lowest income group smoke.20 fags are £9. The average smoker gets through a pack a day so £63 a week. Puts the bedroom tax into perspective.

aufaniae · 02/04/2013 07:39

Skinnywitch again you're making assumptions based on your limited life experience. When I smoked and didn't have much money, I smoked roll ups (which are much cheaper) and/or under the counter imported (ie black market) fags. Some people who are very skint and addicted will even save their buts and re-roll them to make them last. (disgusting but that's the nature of addiction!)

I haven't smoked in 5 years and even now I know where to get the under the counter fags. I think they're about £3.50 or £4 a pack of 20 round here. A large pack of under the counter rolling tobacco is something like £7 or so and will last several days.

And may I ask what your point is? The bedroom tax is not being targetted to smokers. Incidentally are you aware that 2/3 of people affected by the bedroom tax are disabled?

aufaniae · 02/04/2013 07:46

Also your logic is totally screwy. People on very low incomes are very unlikely to act like "average smokers" (a group including people of widely varing wealth) as money is so obviously an influencing factor.

It's absolute hokum to say "many poor people smoke, the average smoker spends £63 a week therefore poor people are spending £63 a week on fags".

It's very poor logic indeed. Is this typical of the level of your critical reasoning? If so I'm starting to understand why you have so little problem swallowing the propaganda spouted by this government.

Please, engage your brain, I'm sure you can do better than this.

It

JakeBullet · 02/04/2013 08:05

Skinny....cigarettes are addictive.

Addiction doesn't care if you are rich or poor......and most who are poor find other ways of getting their fags. My friend smokes roll ups...tiny thin ones but they satisfy her addiction. On days when she's feeling stronger she has an electronic cigarette.

Even those affected by this current ruling who smoke will continue to do so....they might not go to the corner shop any more though...instead they will use roll ups, the black market etc.

They will still be poorer as a result.....smokers or not.

As a public health nurse who sees first hand the effects of poverty I am dreading the effects of these changes.

IDS is lying through his teeth about more people being in employment as a result of his changes.....lies, damned lies and statistics. The man wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit him on the arse! A typical career politician...

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 08:10

£3 - £4 a day is still a sum is it not? I mean, it's twice the bedroom tax which is, according to many on here, about to make thousands homeless as they won't be able to afford it.

May I respectfully suggest that it is not MY logic that is screwed.

twofingerstoGideon · 02/04/2013 08:10

90% of the lowest income group smoke.
Source?
I think you're right about Skinny's critical reasoning, Aufaniae.