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:
IneedAsockamnesty · 02/04/2013 13:02

Just answered my own question apparently not any more.but there used to be

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 13:03

No, of course not sock.!
The only laws protect council tenants. You really think everyone in private housing is rattling around? Really? Wow.

I live in the South East where housing is horrifically expensive. It is perfectly normal for children to share rooms in the Real Non Subsidised World.

FasterStronger · 02/04/2013 13:04

why on earth should there be a law against my friends DCs sharing? how strange....

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 13:05

There are many private families stuck in homes too small for them either because of negative equity or because house prices are so high. Thousands.
But you don;t hear them moaning and whining about it and expecting other people to pay for them to upsize, do you? No, they just tighten their belts, cough up yet more tax and get the feck on with it, as they always have.

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 13:06

I'm guessing it's all part of the one rule for one protected group in society and another for those who have to go it alone, faster? Hmm

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs · 02/04/2013 13:06

Fergus, of course I think about those in B&B etc. I've been there when my house was repossessed following my medical retirements on the grounds of my disability.

I can hardly forget that time.

And I'm overcrowded now. But it's STILL not making me want to financially penalise others in Social Housing, that they were allocated fairly according to policies at the time!

All that is needed is a programme of Social Housing building.

More availability means less people in B&B. Means jobs created for the unemployed whilst they are being built. Means a boost to the economy.

Why not put in Rent Controls on Private Lets, and build masses more Social Housing, tailored to what is actually NEEDED in that area?

It would sort out the whole mess without taking food out of the mouths of the poorest in society, especially those with people with disabilities in their family, seeing as 2/3 of those affected will be those with a person with disabilities in their family.

Unlikely to happen because Rent Controls would adversely affect Private LL's, like the majority of the cabinet.

CecilyP · 02/04/2013 13:06

I think what annoys those who get no housing benefit at all or any state help with their lives or families and pay a lot of tax and have not had pay rises for 5 years and indeed often pay cuts is that they cannot themselves afford more bed rooms and indeed often have 3 children a room and even mixed sexes or share a room with their children and yet state benefits claimants are allowed much more and have all these "rights" that children of certain sexes must not share, parents not to share with chidlren etc etc. It just seem overly generous particularly when coupled with the fact there is still not a benefits cap and when it comes in it is the massive sum of £26,000 a year (or £34,000 of before tax income)

I get no state benefits and work full time for far less than £26,000 per year but I can still empathise with the people who will be affected by this. The only right that LA and HA tenants have is that two people over the age of 10 of the opposite sex should not be sharing a bedroom. It has nothing to do with whether they are benefit claiments or not. And indeed many council tenants have 3, or even 4 children to a room while they wait for something better.

This is really about people's current accommodation which would have been allocated to them and accepted by them in good faith which is now going to lead to a substantial cut in their income. I cut for those who can least afford it. A cut that is not going to help people be able to afford to move.

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 13:08

And indeed many council tenants have 3, or even 4 children to a room while they wait for something better.

And there it is, the great entitlement culture neatly wrapped up in one small sentence. You couldn't make it up.

skinnywitch · 02/04/2013 13:09

Unlikely to happen because Rent Controls would adversely affect Private LL's, like the majority of the cabinet.

Yes, because it's not as if any Labour politicians own vast swathes of property, is it? Hmm

JakeBullet · 02/04/2013 13:12

I agree with you there skinny...the private tenants/homeowners/whatever have been sold a lie, "buy/privately rent and all will be well" ....like hell it will...been there and done that.

They have choices too...sell up and suck up the loss (not tempting)/give notice and look for something smaller (except most need their deposit back) or stay put as thousands of non private tenants also have to. Lack of social housing affects everyone because private or not there is nowhere to go which is why this cut is so inherently unfair.

....and the private tenants DO whine I can assure you because they do so every time one of these threads starts on MN....because for some reason they think living on a slum estate (as many have to) counts as a perk. Weird but there it is.....and I don't see them beating a door down to swap.

PeneloPeePitstop · 02/04/2013 13:13

Why do you think protected groups are protected, skinny?

For the fun of it?

Or could it be that due to attitudes like yours said protected groups are put at a disadvantage and made vulnerable?

MeDented · 02/04/2013 13:13

I can't remember which muppet tried to argue that anything they earn over £20 per week is deducted from their benefits so they are working for free, would you work for free?!!! This is so entitled it makes me mad! You are still £20 better off and working to receive the money may lead to experience that results in a better paid job long term. This logic would mean that every person earning enough to not need benefits is doing the first x number of hours for free too. I think the idea behind the 'bedroom tax' is ok, society can not afford to pay for people to live in houses bigger than they require. We should have a benefits system to support the needy but that doesn't entitle you to a home bigger than you need just because you have lived there for x number of years or because you have always lived in that area. I don't think pensioners should have been excluded, I do think disabled people living in adapted homes or that need extra space for carers or equipment should be excluded and I don't think any of it should have been implemented until people had been given a chance to downsize to appropriate sized properties. If the council can't offer them an appropriate sized property then they shouldn't have the charge deducted. I also agree that the government should be doing more to build social housing too.

Dawndonna · 02/04/2013 13:13

I have already stated that this does not affect me. I do not get state benefits other than Carer's Allowance. I have stated that more than once on this thread.
Doesn't stop me being concerned about those less well off.

CecilyP · 02/04/2013 13:14

^10? really??

Gosh, I know loads of privately owned homes where children of that age are sharing.

Really is one rule for some!^

There is no rule that says they can't share until both children are over 10. Not relevant to the new legislation. However, if families with a boy and girl under 10 (in anticipation that they will both soon by over 10) have applied for and been allocated a 3 bedroom house, they will now deemed to have a spare bedroom and, if on HB, will have to take a cut in income until their older child is 10.

FasterStronger · 02/04/2013 13:17

skinnywitch ..... And indeed many council tenants have 3, or even 4 children to a room while they wait for something better.

the system doesn't work does it?

JakeBullet · 02/04/2013 13:23

Skinny do you actually understand poverty and why people make bad choices at all? I would suggest you haven't a clue!

If there are four children to a bedroom (which I have seen albeit rarely) have you also seen the same in the private sector?

You are right in some of your thoughts but to be frank this cut will change fuck all. Those making bad choices will STILL make bad choices but their children will suffer...but that's okay in your eyes is it?

If its NOT okay the say so and tell us how YOU would make life easier for the children concerned. You obviously have all the answers....

I agree by the way that throwing money at these families is not the answer but neither is making their life harder....all that will happen is that they sink further into poverty and the bad choice lifestyle. In the end that will cost society far far more than any piddling little pennies that this shower of bastards in Govt think they are going to save. Personally I am hoping they see the results in a rapidly and costly way...lets hope for a rainy summer because there WILL be unrest...and even worse I can for the first time ever understand why there is frustration.

Oh and skinny...may lie smack you right between the eyes sometime.....enough to make you reliant or dependent on benefits just for a while so you can see how shit it is....because believe me it IS shit....not least because we have to deal with people like you judging us and blaming us for every little decision we make or may have made in the past.

I am out of here now....not posting or responding any more on this topic. Bye bye.

IneedAsockamnesty · 02/04/2013 13:24

I thought there may be because there did used to be. And as recently as 10 years ago my ex was refused overnight contact in court regarding all his children as he was especially vocal about not providing what the court considered to be appropriate sleep areas.

But either way, you see it as the poor getting a bonus I see it as the poor having to abide by more rules than others, I'm guessing you do know the source of the rule and the old laws regarding siblings sharing? Don't you.

CecilyP · 02/04/2013 13:24

^Is ANYbody here actually thinking about the overcrowded or the homeless...y´know the people its supposed to help?

There are plenty disabled people, kids with ADHD, Aspergers etc all roughing it in BnBs. You can argue vulnerability non stop but nothing is more vulnerable than a child being raised in a BnB.^

I sort of have, but these changes are going to happen throughout the country not just in areas of desparate housing shortage. As I said upthread, we, as a homeless family were allocated a maisonette that was much larger than we needed. The only people affected by this new legislation are people on housing benefit. In order for them to move there has to be somewhere smaller available and they have to be able to afford to move.

Plus, most people downsize in their later years anyway - because they HAVE to - its not a new concept. People don´t fall apart if they have to move houses you know.... Ive moved several times for work reasons etc both as a child and an adult. I had one elderly neighbour on her own in a four bed that she couldnt afford to heat, while next to me there were three kids and two parents in a one bedroom flat.

Yes people downsize, but usually so they can live a little more cheaply (heating and suchlike) or because they can't manage stairs not because their income will be reduced if they don't.

CecilyP · 02/04/2013 13:27

^Technically, at that point, I would become 'entitled to', under the NEW rules, a 5 bed house. But that doesn't mean I will get one - for starters my LA HAS no 5-bed houses. The largest stock IS 4-beds.

So I will STILL have people sharing. This is the same all over. Though they may be 'entitled' to an extra room, it's not available. Doesn't mean I want to drive other people into further poverty to try to get that extra room - my DC's accept room sharing as it's the norm.^

You will not really be entitled to a 5 bedroom house. Your only entitlement is not to have your HB cut if you do, in fact, live in a 5 bedroom house.

PeneloPeePitstop · 02/04/2013 13:30

Thing is though this isn't going to deal with the waiting lists.

The only things that would do that would be either building more social housing appropriate to size needed OR a major correction to the cost of private housing - rental and purchases.

But because the pigs have their snouts rammed so firmly in the trough getting their BTL mortgages paid by the taxpayers (and will then have an asset to cash in with at the end of it) that won't happen.

As I said earlier - a critical need like housing should never be a commodity.

Shagmundfreud · 02/04/2013 13:31

"If its NOT okay the say so and tell us how YOU would make life easier for the children concerned"

People arguing FOR these changes basically feel that the serious disruption to some children's education, or the serious and worrying deprivation they will experience as their parents try to find an extra £60 a month from a subsistence income, to fill the gap left by the reduction in hb if they choose not to move, is WORTH IT. Basically because they want to see parents they deem lazy and feckless suffer for their choices.

They feel it is worth damaging children's lives to do this.

williaminajetfighter · 02/04/2013 13:35

I disagree with the subsidy point. What is happening is that private rents are vastly over inflating 'market' rent. Former social rents covered costs and were not for profit, making the rents more 'real' and not at all subsidised.

Sorry- do you have facts to back that up? Are people living in a 3 bed house at £70 per week really doing so at break-even costs? Dreamland.... Honestly there must be entire swathes of people who really believe that housing costs so little. Look at what happened to Glasgow City Council and how in debt they were with their housing stock before transferring it to the Housing Assn --- and that was debt accrued because, among other things, their income did not match their outgoings.

Also just to flag up that most private LLs don't make a huge profit. An average 5% profit (5% above the cost of covering the mortgage for a property) doesn't amount to much for taking the risk of buying, letting and managing a property. I'm not a huge advocate of mass slumlords, but there is no massive take from renting. The profits that most made over the years have to do with increase in housing prices NOT rental income.

FasterStronger · 02/04/2013 13:36

this is hysterical:

  1. people working for no more money than benefits = working for free
  2. moving, like many people do for work = damaging DCs lives
CecilyP · 02/04/2013 13:37

I live in the South East

How did I know?

^There are many private families stuck in homes too small for them either because of negative equity or because house prices are so high. Thousands.
But you don;t hear them moaning and whining about it ...^

I think you do! And justifiably because negative equity is a horrible position to be in if you do have to move.

CecilyP · 02/04/2013 13:40

^And indeed many council tenants have 3, or even 4 children to a room while they wait for something better.

And there it is, the great entitlement culture neatly wrapped up in one small sentence. You couldn't make it up.^

But you can't have it both ways. Either this bedroom tax is a good thing because it could free up larger homes for larger families. Or it is unecessary because a large family in a small home is guilty of an excessive sense of entitlement if they would like to move somewhere larger.