Bedroom tax will be costly disaster, says housing chief

[vivizone]

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."

[moondog]

A proper reference is needed otherwise it's just an opinion.

It's a massively tricky area.
I can't see it is right that people need to rely on a raft of public assistance even when they are working.
House prices are insane in this country.
They say that is due to obsession with owning and that continentals don't usually own their housing.
#If that is the case, who the hell does?

[rhondajean]

Leith there is an element of political manoeuvring - not biting the hand that feeds you etc.

Plus the problem with being monitored by the Scottish government and trying to influence uk policy.

The snp don't like has as it is.

However there are campaigns, and there are a lot of things happening at local level to try to mitigate effects on their own tenants by has.

[pedrohedges]

Out of 20 odd HA homes in my street i am only 1 of 2 houses that actually have a family.
The rest are pensioners and couples in huge 3 bed homes. The couples all work and obviously the pensioners are exempt. This bedroom tax is hitting the wrong people!

[rhondajean]

Check ons for benefit fraud figures moondog.

It's all there.

[OloeufiaMumsnet]

Hallo
We have moved this to our news topic
Thanks
MNHQ

[rhondajean]

I posted a link to this report a few weeks back - its itneresting reading.

Page 21 for discussion on benefit fraud...

www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Truth-And-Lies-Report-smaller.pdf

[Leithlurker]

Rhonda I would very much like to pm you about this as I agree with all you say and I think the political element is the key. However it is the political element that the grass roots are managing to cut through. I speak as an activist and someone involved in campaigning. I would like if possible to see where the stuff you are talking about and what I am doing can join up. Is it ok to pm you?

Moondog go and google, use the bbd as rhonda has said, try looking at the Rowntree foundation or Inclusion Scotland. The resources are massive, if a link was supplied you could always argue that it is partial, instead think fer yersel

[rhondajean]

And here is your dwp link for official take up of means tested benefits only (ie not DLA etc)

statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=irb

[rhondajean]

Please do leith. I don't know how much help I can be, and I need to go do some stuff like bath a child! But I'd be very interested in talking to you.

[chris481]

I am a bit mystified about the argument that there's nowhere for people downsizing to go and that lots of people will end up homeless. How can having fewer empty bedrooms in the country as a whole cause a greater overall shortage of bedrooms? Think there's lots of one-eyed special pleading going on.

I think talking about cutting the "spare room subsidy" rather than imposing a "bedroom tax" is more honest. In this instance, the right-wing spin is more accurate than the left. However the left have already won that battle.

That costs may go up if people are forced into smaller but more expensive private properties does not bother me, that tells me that the council rents are wrong in the first place and should go up, so that we have an accurate view of the level of subsidy being provided. To put it another way, people should only be explicitly subsidised by housing benefit, if eligible. No-one should be subsidised by below-market social rents, such subsidies go to both housing benefit claimants and relatively well-off people. Artificially low rents cause a lack of transparency about levels of subsidies and who they go to. (Of course the left may prefer that lack of transparency.)

I personally would prefer social housing to be abolished, but a more secure form of tenure to be made available in the private sector at the same time. Alternatively, secure tenancies should be offered to whoever is willing to pay the highest rent, which would ensure they are let at a market price. This would not necessarily lock people on benefits out of such housing, as the (presumably higher) rents would be paid by housing benefit anyway.

I do understand this policy will be horrible for some people who have to move. Equally, it will be nice for some people who will now get the size of home they need. There will be more winners than losers, but that's no comfort to the losers.

[Dawndonna]

Again, it has been demonstrated that there will definitely be more losers than winners. Pensioners are exempt. Much of the larger local authority housing is three bedroomed and occupied by people of pensionable age, ergo, a lack of housing is created.
As for more secure tenancies, the Tories put paid to that with the 1989 housing act, that was the one in which Thatcher said if you live on a council estate, you're a criminal.

[moondog]

Thanks Rhonda.
Interesting reading on that link.

[milkand2sugars]

birdsgottafly it is not a tax it's a change in benefit entitlement.

[CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs]

LornMowa - lots of Social Housing tenancies have a clause stating that if you rent out a spare room, you are in breach of your tenancy agreement and will be evicted.

Lots of Social Housing tenants don't have that option, or they will lose their home anyway.

My Housing Association for one, and three others that my friends rent from, have ALL said that they will not be changing their tenancy agreements to allow the tenant to take in a lodger to fill a spare room, as it is classed as Subletting, and they WILL go to court to gain a Notice of Seeking Possession - in other words, all four HA's WILL evict anyone found to be subletting a room.

AND they do unannounced spot checks too. All four of them.

[AThingInYourLife]

"No-one should be subsidised by below-market social rents, such subsidies go to both housing benefit claimants and relatively well-off people."

Or more accurately, social rents reduce the massive transfer of public money to private landlords.

If we're going to be "honest" and talk about subsidies, then all subsidies have to be on the table.

[bochead]

bank fraud has cost this nation a LOT more than 1.2b since 2008!

It's a perfect storm for many on low fixed incomes (no employers are not giving pay rises in the main right now!)

1. Council tax increases for many (eg those on IS/JSA)
   
2. HB reductions = more money to pay out of a tiny income every week
   
3. NHS cuts - longer waiting times, increased therapy costs etc, etc.
   
4. Utilities increases during the longest winter we've had for years. people are already DYING every week due to the impact of fuel poverty.
   
5. Increased food costs - the cost of basic food items like eggs, flour, rice has risen dramatically over the last few years hitting those who ALREADY meal plan, cook from scratch etc, etc.
   
6. The deepest recession for 100 years - the well paid jobs just aren't out there in the numbers needed!
   

If you have the misfortune to BE or have a family member with a disability the cuts to both benefits AND service provision are coming thicker, and faster than it's possible to keep up with. This is the group that CANNOT get on their bikes or just work longer hours to keep up with it all.

There's a lack of general awareness amongst the public that for many disabled people the benefits they receive such as DLA or housing benefit are the lifeline that actually enable them to work.

Part of my last paid employment post was to help disabled people select appropriate assistive technologies to go to work, whether that was a voice recognition typing package, or an adapted car, or a hearing aid. I met many, many inspirational people making a real go of being productive members of society despite massive barriers. I am so angry that some of the proud hard working individuals I had the honor to meet are now being reduced to the status of beggars through no fault of their own.

I'm disgusted that the housing benefit cuts do not take into account the very real needs of the disabled. Equipment etc takes up space and I can't see paid or familial carers sleeping on the floor or in the bath tub on a regular basis.

The lack of available social housing at affordable rents has been a well recognised issue for decades. In parts of London the low paid & hard working already sleep 10 to a room or rent back garden sheds.

The feral scum of the earth will just continue to fund their wide screen TV's and BMW's with their usual income stream of drug dealing & mugging old ladies etc. These coming changes won't affect the "Shameless" section of society in the slightst - but instead will instead push many individuals and families who are just coping over the edge. When people have nothing left to lose, they lose it!

I'm not witnessing a jot of Vision or inspiration for digging our nation out of the financial quagmire from either the current leadership or the opposition. It's scary as I think the nation's adults are sleepwalking our children into a nightmarish future. Generations to come are unlikely to forgive us.

[Leithlurker]

Ok Chris lets take this one bit at a time, although I appreciate at least your being honest and saying what you believe not just coming out with claptrap.

So your first point: We have a general shortage of housing of all kinds. Most notably in the south east. In fact in other parts of the country, north west for example. Housed lie empty. This shortage has made both land and the cost of housing very high. Coupled with that several governments have pushed policies of home ownership rather than social housing. Most of these new homes being built by the private sector have been small one two bedrooms types. this is important because as a condition of planning permission many schemes have to include some social housing element, normally purchased by housing associations.

So A lack of new housing stock is the result. Councils and Housing associations have in general a small number of 1 bedroom flats. Those families with two or oner adult who want to downsize have little scope to do so. Many people either single or in families who have an impairment have either physicle adaptations to their houses, or live where they do as it offers them some support to mitigate their conditions. Being close to public transport, not on a hill, close to health centre etc. For them the choice of moving is non existent for obvious reasons.

Their are other issues that limit the availability such as nimbyism and planning controls, but for now you should start to get the picture that no one is saying the people are refusing to move. In fact people would move if a suitable alternative was their. But more often that not, it is not their.

[Orwellian]

It isn't a tax, it is a reduction in benefit for a spare room that is not needed so that a family who is desperately in need of a bigger home can get one.

[CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs]

FasterStronger - over a period of time, maybe. But what about the poverty experienced by many on the meantime? Does that not matter? Are they to be made homeless etc 'for the greater good', and because 'it will all work out in the end' ?!

In the meantime, REAL people, REAL children will be made homeless.

And once they are evicted for non-payment of rent, those families then DO NOT get housed, even in a hostel, by their Council, as their Council has NO 'duty to house' them, as they are classed as having made themselves 'INTENTIONALLY HOMELESS'.

Look up the rules surrounding intentional homelessness. It's often FAR from intentional, but still leaves people having to try to source housing from the Private Rented sector.

Lots of BTL LL's have mortgages that expressedly prevent them from renting to ANYONE on HB, be that full HB due to unemployment or part HB due to working for low wages.

So that limits the amount of properties available in the Private Rented sector to downsize into for those receiving HB.

THEN you have the fact that lots more Private Sector LL's choose to only rent to those in FT employment.

Which limits the properties available to downsize into in the Private Rented sector even further, as many people claiming benefits like WTC can only work PT due to things like childcare issues or Caring responsibilities.

THEN you have the fact that lots of Private Sector LL's won't rent to anyone with DC's.

Which limits availability of properties to downsize into in the Private Rented Sector yet further.

Then you get into the issue that MOST Private Rented Sector LL's will refuse to allow their properties to be adapted for wheelchairs or other necessary disability aids like grab rails, stairlifts etc.

Which limits the availability of properties to downsize into in the Private Rented Sector EVEN MORE for those families where there is a member of the family with disabilities.

Where exactly are these people meant to GO?!

[JakeBullet]

Orwellian, do you HONESTLY believe that this bedroom tax will free up homes for families who need them? If you do then you need to take a reality check in some way. There are a shortage of two bedroom properties in this area for example so SOME folk will have been placed in three bedroom properties regardless. The fact that this cut in HB has come in does not increase the two bedroom properties out there.....the family in the three bedroom house will be highly unlikely to find a two bedroom place because they are just not out there.....alll that will happen is that they will be plunged further into poverty.
I predict riots and unrest as this bites becuase it WILL cause real difficukties for those who can least afford it.
I am lucky, I am in a two bedroom house but if I had been inmy old place (a three bedroom flat on a slum estate) it WOULD affect me. Let me tell you I would be less than pleased at having to find money I dont have for the pleasure of living with antisocial neighbours in slum conditions.
Ironically the people who are most likely to underoccupy....the elderly...will not be affecrted. This is an ideological cut to welfare for the poorest....nothuing else.

[Leithlurker]

Couthy as usual!

[Leithlurker]

Orwellian define for me, if you will not needed?

[Leithlurker]

Jake I do not think I have had the opportunity to say that I am an admirer of your work, please continue.

[moondog]

It's worrying that even Frank Field has spoken out about this and called it 'Stalinesque'.

[Leithlurker]

Frank Field and Liam Byrne would both be better of in the tory party. Brick up doors and knock down walls indeed, snort!