Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
HoHoHoNoYouDont · 31/03/2013 12:00

Then you voted Tory then.

rhondajean · 31/03/2013 12:03

I actually don't care if this gets deleted...

Are you drunk????

Viviennemary · 31/03/2013 12:06

I voted labour but probably won't be again. They don't have any answers to this country's problems. But do the Tories. We shall see.

HoHoHoNoYouDont · 31/03/2013 12:07

Yes Rhonda I must be. I've spent all my benefit money to buy alcohol for breakfast whist browsing The Mail. Hmm

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and doesn't deserve insults as you have given just because you didn't like my response. No need to get so heated.

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS · 31/03/2013 12:12

Exactly, RJ. You think it through and you realise the unfairness and the prejudice. To take £50 a month or thereabouts off a single mum with one child (and a tiny food budget) living in a small council owned property is really, really going to hurt. Add council tax to that and you have totally fucked that single mum over.

Leithlurker · 31/03/2013 12:14

All this claptrap about "Those that can afford to buy, should buy" what a load of old tosh. How about I tell everyone that if you have a driving license you should have a car.

People rent and in particular for lots of reasons, one would be because they do not want the responsibility or the cost of looking after a house. Another would be that they never intend leaving a house as an inheritance, a third and my last would be that, having witnessed the huge housing bubble created by and predicated on the need for international banks to "loan" money to people who cannot afford it. People who rent have rightly worked out that mortgages are a gamble and that they neither want to gamble or can afford to gamble.

Those that argue for people who can afford it, to buy and give up social housing, need to ask themselves at what point do they give up the right to spend the money they have earned in the way that they choose.

hwjm1945 · 31/03/2013 12:17

Just a thought...where is the single mum's ex?can't he be pursued?housing Ben bills are sky high and thus allow inflated private sector rents...there should be more sophisticated targeting of cuts...using scalpel and not this apparently hammer which is causing massive collateral damage to the vulnerable.why exclude pensioners for example?

Altinkum · 31/03/2013 12:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FasterStronger · 31/03/2013 12:20

The change should lead to a better use of social housing stock over a period of time and a shift of the wrong type of housing for the local population to private landlords which is also a good thing.

Leithlurker · 31/03/2013 12:21

Vivien, exactly what are you waiting to see? This thread alone tells you that they do not. 3 years they and their libdem chums have been screwing the poor, how much longer to you want to wait for?

Most of their policies are in a state of collapse with even Ian Duncan "Ratbag" Smith admitting that welfare cuts are not achievable and his flagship universal credit is a leaning tower of shame that stigmatises the working poor, the self employed, and even the lower reaches of the middle class. But since it will never come in to being as it is so badly flawed it is undeliverable that's ok. Except it's not as the intention was there wasn't it!

NicholasTeakozy · 31/03/2013 12:21

Welfare should pay for the bare minimum, otherwise there is no incentive to work. Indeed, many choose not to already hence why we need a party strong enough to break the cycle.

You do realise that JSA is a massive £71pw? That is for food, heating, lighting, water etc. And for transport to get to interviews. As for there being no incentive to work, what a crock of shit. There are over 2.5m people unemployed in this country and around 450k vacancies. Also, those on the Mandatory Work Activity are not counted as unemployed, even though they receive JSA.

There are so many things this government is doing that are wrong and stupid, but it's deliberate. They aim to destroy the welfare state and replace it with in insurance based for profit scheme similar to that in the US. They know this is going to cost more, but that's ok because their corporate friends will make money out of poverty.

rhondajean · 31/03/2013 12:22

Oh I'm not het up - its just that you are making no sense.

Nightmare, coupled with the change to monthly payments and the direct payments system later in the year, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

I am very, very worried.

TraineeBabyCatcher · 31/03/2013 12:22

Are you even allowed lodgers in council houses?

rhondajean · 31/03/2013 12:24

Faster I genuinely don't understand your post? Can you explain?

hwjm1945 · 31/03/2013 12:25

Would it be better to phase it in,say in 3 years' time to allow planning,along with an appeals system?or would that cost more than would save?

HoHoHoNoYouDont · 31/03/2013 12:26

Then I speak as much sense as you RJ

Trainee I believe you would have to get permission to sublet.

But who would people allow in as a lodger? If I had children I wouldn't feel comfortable with a virtual stranger sleeping in the next bedroom!

Viviennemary · 31/03/2013 12:26

Labour had a mighty long time in which to mess things up. Which only came to light after the election. And sorry but why should people in private housing be subject to different rules re housing benefit as to those in council housing. I think the welfare state should exist for those in genuine need. But it has got distorted. People should ask themselves why Labour did not get in with a huge majority. If they have the answers then they should have. JSA was the same under Labour. So you can't blame the Tories for that.

Leithlurker · 31/03/2013 12:28

Faster, explain to us then how that will work, how will being a tennent of a private landlord be better for people? What exactly do you mean by better use of social housing?
Explain what you think will need to happen to make sure that social housing is never under occupied, or used badly. Lastly what do you mean by the wrong type of housing.

Do not come on here and just let your thoughts spill out back them up.

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS · 31/03/2013 12:30

Has this shit been challenged legally yet? Surely it will get taken to the ECHR? Retrospective sanctions breaching right to a private family life etc.

Leithlurker · 31/03/2013 12:31

Viv, you did not answer the question, but thanks for the insight in to your loathing for the poor though.

So how long do YOU want to give them, and at what point will it be long enough?

rhondajean · 31/03/2013 12:34

I'm not advocating any party here.l.

There is no way to actually make this fair and workable.

Letting policies up til now often allowed potential tenants to request one more room than they needed. Even if policies are changed, what happens when tenants circumstances change? Why should people not be entitled to a home which is theirs?

The real issue is actually a long term lack of investment in social housing by consecutive governments, coupled with poor policy direction re building requirements, followed on by this poorly thought through knee jerk reaction of a new policy.

If its genuinely bout encouraging people to move, why not have a policy similar to jsa? Where you show you are looking for more "suitable" accomodation?

And all this nonsense about saving money - this is going to cost more to implement than it could ever save. Plus as others have pointed out, real housing costs will go up for many people who get forced into private let's and hostel accomodation.

Viviennemary · 31/03/2013 12:34

Universal Credit hasn't even happened yet. Why assume I loathe the poor. This emotive stuff just doesn't work with me any more I'm afraid. Yes there are genuine people in need and often they are the ones the benefit system fails while others milk the system for all it's worth.

hwjm1945 · 31/03/2013 12:38

Why should people not be entitled to a home that is theirs?but the trouble is. The taxpayer is paying fir it. So the person will inevitably have less choice than someone who is a free agent.another reason why they call it being trapped on benefits

Leithlurker · 31/03/2013 12:42

Viv the point that universal credit will never happen IS THE BLOODY POINT. You said "I voted labour but probably won't be again. They don't have any answers to this country's problems. But do the Tories. We shall see."

So having spent billions of pounds on finding out that everyone and their dug who said that it was not possible or even desirable to bring out universal credit was right all along.

Plus as we head in to a triple dip recession purely and totally engineered by Osborne, you want to wait til when exactly? What is it that would be the final straw?

I am glads your immune to emotive language4, fortunately I am not so you can be non emotive about me telling you that the number of "milkers" is so small that they cost you personally virtually nothing out of your tax. And that the many who are in need are only so due to the policies that you seem to support. If that does not show loathing for the poor my apologies, I would say you lack empathy but you have kinda admitted that already.

AThingInYourLife · 31/03/2013 12:42

"And now, if these changes actually work and bring down the countries debts and spending"

You mean the opposite result of this government's policies since they came into office?