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:
skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 08:13

jake twenty odd years ago myself and most of my friends smoked.
Not one of us has now done so for years. We all gave up long before NHS support and electronic fags.

I'm sure you aren't suggesting the poor are somehow less able than the rest of us to stop? Hmm

JakeBullet · 02/04/2013 08:15

skinny CIGARETTES ARE ADDICTIVE AND ADDICTION DOESNT CARE IF YOU ARE RICH OR POOR....

HAVE YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT?????

Those affected who smoke WILL STILL SMOKE, they will just find other cheaper ways of getting their fix.

And for the record I am not a smoker and I claim HB and lots of other benefits due to DS's autism. I am not affected by this change as I am in a two bedroom property.

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 08:17

No, you are correct - it's not quite 90% :

There is a gradient in smoking prevalence with social class. In social
class I around 15% of men and 14% of women smoke cigarettes. In
social class V smoking prevalence reaches 45% for men and 33%
for women.3
However this obscures the very high levels observed
among the most deprived groups, where smoking prevalence reaches
over 70%, and is about 90% in homeless people sleeping rough.

JakeBullet · 02/04/2013 08:18

Depends skinny, my friend who IS affected by this change smokes loads of cigarettes...they help her cope with her crappy childhood which included being raped from the age of 9 in every possible way. Yes you DID read that correctly.....how thick do you have to be not to understand why people might smoke or have any other addiction? Hmm

But hey...she is to blame for her addiction right? Hmm

rhondajean · 02/04/2013 08:18

Apologies for these figures being 15 years old, but as the have been a raft of anti smoking measures out in place since then, I think we can safely say there hasn't been a massive RISE in smokers in any socioeconomic group over that time.

If you look at page 8, the table clearly shows under 50 percent of socioeconomic group 5 smoke. These are NICE statistics.
www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/documents/smoking_low_income.pdf

I've been able to consistently provide evidence to debunk a lot of the crap spouted on this thread and still people persist. It's depressing and proves the point that the majority of people will believe what they want to believe and what makes them comfortable rather than the truth.

JakeBullet · 02/04/2013 08:19

"about 90% in people sleeping rough".....coping with their shitty life perhaps?

Probably the only little pleasure they have.....and they wont be homeless just because they smoke.

flatbread · 02/04/2013 08:19

What support for the child has been put in place in order to safeguard them whilst the household shuts down for the night

Why on earth should the state be involved in how parents deal with insomnia? The mind boggles at the reliance on a nanny state.

People who work and pay for their own housing deal with insomnia, snoring, three children in one bedroom and host of other compromises all the time. Without whining about how unfair and difficult it is.

The reason I mentioned that people with physical disabilities should be exempt from moving to smaller housing is because they often need modified homes, which are in scarce supply.

It doesn't mean that other disabilities aren't real. But just that they don't warrant an extra bedroom on state welfare.

And just like people who pay rent/mortgage out of their own pocket, people affected need go all out to find a property that fits the rules or somehow cough up the extra. People deal with this all the time in the private sector, as rents are raised or families need to find new homes to meet their changed circumstances. It s never easy for anyone.

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 08:19

JAKE - I'LL SHOUT TOO SHALL I? MILLIONS OF PEOPLE GIVE UP OR ARE YOU SAYING ONLY THE RICH ARE CAPABLE OF DOING SO?

Smoke or don't smoke - I couldn't care less as adults you make your own choices. But please don't bleat that you can't afford the extra £2 a week on a spare bedroom because you choose to do so.

rhondajean · 02/04/2013 08:21

In fact, this is much more recent and from the Bevan Foundation, it's only Wales but still shows under 45 percent of those not or never working smoke on page 8.

www.bevanfoundation.org/wordpress-content/uploads/2013/03/Inequalities-Smoking-Summary-Final.pdf

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 08:24

rhondajean 50% rising to 70% Still at least half of those in poverty smoke. And smoking is cripplingly expensive. far more than £2 a week extra for a spare room.

You can't possibly win by trying to defend smoking, it's complete madness!

rhondajean · 02/04/2013 08:25

Hat Bevan report is quite interesting on smoking as a health inequality and the reasons for lower socioeconomic groups continuing to smoke. And hey ho guess what, it counts stress as a huge factor.

Of course, reducing income is going to help massively reduce stress and that will make it easier for them eh Hmm

JakeBullet · 02/04/2013 08:25

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 08:26

Still a huge number of people who can afford high tobacco prices who are on benefits, though rhondajean. But paying £2 a week will force them on the streets? Hmm

rhondajean · 02/04/2013 08:26

I'm not defending smoking. I'm pointing put you are creating statistics to suit yourself and without any comprehension of what may lie behind them.

Are you a career politician?

rhondajean · 02/04/2013 08:29

Are we counting the numbers of people who use tobacco as an appetite suppressant skinny because it's cheaper to smoke than eat properly as well?

The vast numbers who were hooked in by tobacco companies when cigarettes were cheap and freely available and now can't stop and are in poor health because of it?

Or hey let's ignore all that becaus yknow it's their FAULT isn't it.

I no longer believe in darwins theories after this thread.

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 08:29

Don't put words into my mouth jake and why resort to namecalling?
People smoke, that's entirely , 100% up to them. But they cannot then complain that they are broke.

it is absolutely NO different to the bashing middle class people get on here when they say money is tight and they are told they have chosen a mortgage or car or holiday.

Choices. We ALL make choices even though they may be shaped by circumstance.

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 08:32

It's cheaper to smoke than to eat? I really do believe I have heard it all now.

Cigarettes haven't been cheap for twenty years. Or are you saying all smokers are over 40?

A pack of legit fags =£9
A pack of black market fags = £3-£4 ( apparently)

What sort of meals are you making that you can't do for £4? Hmm

JakeBullet · 02/04/2013 08:33

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 08:35

I'll repeat. Smoke as much as you like, I don't care. But don't then moan you can't afford the £2 a week for the extra bedroom you aren't entitled to.
It really is that simple, yes.

flatbread · 02/04/2013 08:36

Are we counting the numbers of people who use tobacco as an appetite suppressant skinny because it's cheaper to smoke than eat properly as well?

You must be joking?!

It is very cheap and healthy to prepare a meal with beans and seasonal veggies. Costs under £1 to feed a family of four. A pack of cigarettes costs over £7 quid

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 08:36

I'm still dying to know what meals rhondajean can't afford to make for £4 0r £9 .

JakeBullet · 02/04/2013 08:37

So is it my friend's fault she smokes skinny...Yes or No? Is it understandable she smokes? Again a simple Yes or No?

That will tell me if my "name calling" as you call it is justified or not.

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 08:38

Ah, thanks flatbread.

I do think the statement that it is cheaper to smoke than to eat must be the funniest and most extraordinary I have ever read on here.

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 08:40

it's understandable yes Jake but it is still a choice. Not all abused people smoke as well you must know.

rhondajean · 02/04/2013 08:45

You are being deliberately obtuse now.

I hope, I hope it's not real.

Although I would live to see the recipe for the £1 meal. Given I've just spent a week working with focus on food and their low cost main meals are coming in at £5-6 for four?