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:
FasterStronger · 02/04/2013 14:57

cecilly - your maths are correct but meaningless in financial terms.

Xenia · 02/04/2013 15:07

Sleep deprivation? I suspect 20% of mumsnetters suffer that because they have to sleep next to a snoring husband for 30 years and don't have a spare room. They probably don't expect the state to buy them houses with extra rooms in nor if the baby they share a room with is up every 2 hours and they are off out next morning to work a full day as plenty of full time working mothers of babies do who are working very hard indeed.

As for community needs - these communities where on one has worked for a generation and the only goal is becoming the best drug dealer on the estate might be a rather good thing to be breaking up surely? The congregation of people in poverty living near and only knowing those in the same situation who are all reliant on benefits is not a community we need or want kept nor a community where there is no work near by. Many of us have moved hundreds of miles away from family support (I did) and now work full time and always have to fund these people who rely on state support and cannot afford to be away from their precious extended family and expect us all to keep them so they can remain there even if the move is only from Kensington to Luton.

Darkesteyes · 02/04/2013 15:08

Someone posted on a guardian comment thread over the weekend.
A 54 yr old man who has been made redundant for the first time and now has to work 30 hrs a week in Tesco for his JSA.
Now if hes not working for free and hes working for his JSA hasnt he paid for his jsa twice over what with all the N.I he has paid [buhmm]

A branch of Homebase has 21 people on workfare IN ONE BRANCH.
A pizza company had 100 people on workfare IN ONE BRANCH.
Now those people can really afford to go out and spend and help the economy cant they .......NOT!

williaminajetfighter · 02/04/2013 15:12

Stormy, look I never said 'No ones cares about me' waaah and the last thing I want is some local authority adult social worker calling me to ensure I'm okay or check that my needs are being met. Wink

But Faster is right. It is globalization. And it's not something I can personally can except, perhaps through my spending power. When we purchase cheap kids clothes at Asda made in Chinese 'sweat shops' by people paid a pittance, when so much work is being outsourced, and when we then still expect the same or better standard of living -- well, someting just doesn't jive.

I may sound like a fascist on this thread but everyone is having it worse... and the public are tired of the fact that they are having to do what they need to get by but other members of the population think it doesn't apply to them. That's all.

Darkesteyes · 02/04/2013 15:13

From the link.

for up to 30 hours a week for eight weeks over the Christmas period. I am terrified by the idea that head office think they don?t need to pay their staff. I myself am on part-time minimum wage and if they can have workers for free now, what is to stop them making my position redundant and using job centre people to run the store at no cost to themselves?? ? Shoezone employee, November 2012.

At the end of 2012, stores such as Argos, Asda, Superdrug and Shoezone made use of the government?s workfare schemes to meet their seasonal demand, instead of hiring extra staff or offering overtime. This is part of an increasing trend to replace paid employees with workfare participants. In September the 2 Sisters Food Group sacked 350 workers at its plant in Leicester. It moved the production of its pizza toppings to Nottingham, claiming that the move was ?as a result of several recent strikes?. However, instead of employing people, the company has taken on 100 workfare placements, ?to give them an idea of what it?s like to work in the food sector?.

It?s not just companies using workfare. It has an increasing presence in the public sector too, plugging the gaps left by redundancies and cuts. Hospitals, public transport and councils have all used workfare participants to provide services. Halton Council has shed 10 per cent of jobs since 2010, and is now using workfare placements. Lewisham has closed some of its libraries. It has now emerged that its new, outsourced ?community libraries? use people mandated onto workfare for free labour.

The use of workfare has escalated over the past year and this has had a significant effect on the amount of paid work available. ?Mandatory work activity?, which compels people to work without pay for 30 hours a week for four weeks, has been expanded to 70,000 placements a year, despite Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) research showing that it had ?zero effect? on people?s chances of finding work. The so-called ?work experience scheme?, eight-week placements mainly in the private sector, is expected to put 250,000 people to work without pay over the next three years. The government refuses to say how many of the 850,000 people sent on the ?work programme? have also been forced to work for free. With five other workfare schemes also in operation, it all adds up to workfare replacing paid jobs and driving down wages.

Arisbottle · 02/04/2013 15:18

Willamena please do not count me as one of your public. We are lucky not to rely on any state benefits - although we use state schools and hospitals so that is not strictly true . But it is luck and therefore I am more than happy to share some of my luck produced windfall with those who are not as fortunate .

Dawndonna · 02/04/2013 15:21

Fuck, I've got it, Xenia is Thatcher in disguise!

Darkesteyes · 02/04/2013 15:21

Couthy if those jsa claimants in your local tesco are on their third six month placement that is 18 months of unwaged work that each one of them has done 18 MONTHS. no wonder A4E wants it kept quiet.

Xenia · 02/04/2013 15:22

Yet most of the population despite the impression on this thread are in favour of workfare and in favour of the over occupancy changes. It surprisingly unites voters of all parties - there is a lot of support for it presumably because most people work very hard and want to ensure not working is pretty horrible so there is a disincentive to live off the state.

Arisbottle · 02/04/2013 15:23

I don't want to make anyone's life horrible. I must be very odd.

Darkesteyes · 02/04/2013 15:26

The same people who are all for workfare here are against similar things happening in other countries. They will clutch their pearls about people over in Africa not earning a fair wage (and i think its disgusting that they dont get a fair wage before someone tries to twist what i am saying) while championing people not earning a fair wage over here.
Its called inverted racism.

flatbread · 02/04/2013 15:27

This reply has been deleted

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

Darkesteyes · 02/04/2013 15:29

If loads of the population are in favour of workfare Xenia could you please explain why A4e and their ilk have claimants signing confidentiality clauses to keep it quiet!

PeneloPeePitstop · 02/04/2013 15:31

Let me put it this way, flatbread.
We could actually turn our disabled family members over to state care at a cost of £3,000 each per week.

We don't, and we suffer financially, mentally and physically for it.

We're doing you a favour. Only someone with fuck all empathy and common sense would fail to realise the simple economic sense.

Darkesteyes · 02/04/2013 15:32

a carer still has to be there to do the day to day care. and they cant live on fresh air.

Darkesteyes · 02/04/2013 15:34

this will never happen but i think there should be a day when all the carers phone ss en masse and say they cant cope anymore. THEN people might realise what carers actually do and sacrifice.

CecilyP · 02/04/2013 15:34

cecilly - your maths are correct

Thank you

but meaningless in financial terms.

Would you care to elaborate?

flatbread · 02/04/2013 15:35

Again, it is not a god-given right that the state has to take care of your children. We do it as a society because we want to, not because we have to. Lots of societies don't and expect families to take care of their own.

So gratitude instead of entitlement to state support would be more appropriate

PeneloPeePitstop · 02/04/2013 15:35

Oh, and there's a vast difference between a snoring husband and a family member who does not sleep due to disability who will put themselves and other family members at risk due to risky behaviours and lack of awareness of danger due to their disability.

Again, only someone with limited intelligence would fail to see that.

Dawndonna · 02/04/2013 15:35

I assume you are looking after your own families? Why do you assume it is the state's responsibility to look after them and you are doing us a 'favour' by looking after your partner/children yourself?

Yep it's my family. Strangely the state does in fact offer care for those with physical and mental disabilities. There are many homes up and down the country for such people. They cost the government a fortune. We do have the option to put our husbands/partners/children in these homes, we choose not to. So, you suggest we are penalised for that.
I'm very sorry, but with the statement you have made above you have shown that you have no valid contribution to make to a) this discussion b) humanity.

PeneloPeePitstop · 02/04/2013 15:36

I'd also add that such views are disablist bigotry and have reported as such.

Oh, and goady too.

Darkesteyes · 02/04/2013 15:37

Lots of societies don't and expect WOMEN to take care of their own.

Corrected for you flatbread.

Darkesteyes · 02/04/2013 15:40

It is disabilism and we have had inverted racism.

Im beginning to believe that if Golden Dawn ever want to try to bring their vile views here they wont be short of supporters.

PeneloPeePitstop · 02/04/2013 15:40

Dawndonna, for the third time on this thread I'll point out the fact that the arguments on this thread are so weak that posters are having to resort to disablist goading and bigotry, and use of stereotypes.

Their lack of interest in actual debate is shown because they have failed to engage in debate when those stereotypes have been directly challenged, instead repeating their disablist, goady, stereotypical mantra.

It shows breathtaking shortsightedness, ignorance and actually stupidity too.

Some might wish a dose of our 'real life' on individuals who have these opinions.