Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
Leithlurker · 31/03/2013 15:31

As others have pointed out Hal, your in danger of casting stones in glass houses. But my point is more about where you think those that are down sizing will end up. Since your doing an exchange thats all right and good, it is a mutual agreement. Those who are forced to move, those on housing benefit just like you will be at risk from many different things. Debt, uncaring and bad landlords, moving away from family, having to move to an an suitable house.

If everyone were to do a mutual exchange then people like me would not be complaining as much, but the numbers do not lie so we know that cannot happen. So it means no fluffy sweet happy endings, it means for those families that get a larger place, the chances are of a single person or a couple having had their lives made a whole lot worse.

seriouslychocolatey · 31/03/2013 15:35

and the biggest problem of all is the lack of social housing , the ridiculous price of property in this country and the un-regulation of the private rental sector. But that's something no one seems to want to tackle. No one wants house prices to come down and push people /voters into negative equity and the Tories certainly don't want to regulate private rent , so once again the poorest and most vulnerable are those who have to suffer.

moondog · 31/03/2013 15:37

But aren't the Tories regulating rent by refusing to pay greedy private landlords over a certain amount for their tenants each month? I can't see how that is considered to be a bad thing.

JakeBullet · 31/03/2013 15:37

seriously she will then be subject to the bedroom tax if she claims any housing benefit.

It won't get YOU social housing though.

So you would be happy for her to suffer? A simple yes or no!

Its not fair to you but making her life hard won't make your life any easier or fairer.

Fact is that she might decide to downsize if she is affected ....if there is anywhere to downsize to. Currently the demand outstrips the supply. THAT is the reality and your life won't be any better for it. You will still be in your privately rented place and your friend will still be in social housing.

And if you ARE a friend I would be disappointed in you for being glad that your friend might well suffer just because she was deemed in need of social housing.

JakeBullet · 31/03/2013 15:39

....and I agree with you about the lack of social housing too. So so wrong.

No investment in social housing, just an attempt to make things harder for people

seriouslychocolatey · 31/03/2013 15:44

jake WTF where did i say i was glad? I was simply comparing 2 single mums as many people don't seem to understand that this rule has been the reality for many years for those of us who live in private rental accomodation. It sucks, I think i've made that clear. I don't want social housing for myself. If i did I would have done what my friend did to get it.

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs · 31/03/2013 15:44

Hai, you will need to pay this 'bedroom tax' if you move into this 3 bed place, right up until your older DC turns 10.

If you stay in a 2-bed until your DS is 10yo, you won't have to pay it.

If you move before his 10th Birthday, you WILL.

And the rules for bedroom allowances are changing nationally to the ones my area has already had for 15 years - that DC's of opposite sexes have to share a room until they are 10yo, TWO children of the same sex have to share a room until the oldest is 16yo, and NO bedroom allowance for NRP's DC's.

I guess this tax will not hit half as hard here as these are rules we have had for 15 years, so it's no change for us in our Council area, but I know that in other areas, it will be a massive change.

I have no idea why these have been the rules here for so long - shortage of Social Housing probably. I didn't realise it was different in other areas until one of my friends moved from here to Newcastle.

Our Council will actually leave families waiting for Social Housing in a single room (for the entire family) in B&B, often in other towns 30+ miles away (away from their DC's schools too, necessitating a change of school and then ANOTHER change of school when they GET permanent housing) for up to TWO YEARS rather than give them a property larger than they are 'entitled' to.

They have actually been fined or admonished for this every year for the last 12 years at least...

Still happens though. Housing list has 60,000 people on it (in a small town), available houses each year only around 400. And that's houses of ALL sizes, from studio flats to 4 bed houses. Our area has NO 5 bed houses. I know a Catholic lady with 10 DC's, 7 still live at home, in a 4 bed house. And she is classed as LUCKY in my area to get one of the one to five 4 beds that come up in a year.

This year there has been TWO one bed places so far, and THREE 4 bed places - and two of those were new build 4 beds.

The housing at EITHER end just isn't being invested in.

And this Government have REMOVED the requirement for new build estates to have a certain percentage of Social Housing on them too - it's down to the discretion of the Company that is building the houses.

Which is going to limit movement in Social Housing too. As is the fact that anyone over the age of 60/65 will be exempt from this. If I won't be classed as a pensioner until I'm 70, why should those under 70 be exempt from this rule?!

moondog · 31/03/2013 15:46

Why do people say 'social housing' anyway?
It's all bloody social.

HappyMummyOfOne · 31/03/2013 15:50

I love how its all the governments fault, never the person who choose to have x number of children or work part time and claim the rest of the income from the state etc. There has to be an element of personal responsibility.

The new ruling seems to put all renters claiming HB on an equal footing, that seems fair. People with spare rooms have the choice of paying for that luxury or downsizing to a house the correct size for their needs.

IneedAsockamnesty · 31/03/2013 15:51

I am doing an exchange rhonda i know the housing assosiation won't rehouse me as yet, and tbh if i was staying where i was i doubt they wud fo anything when he turns 10 they are arses!

Good luck with doing an exchange, seen as they are how no longer allowed to approve ANY exchanges that result in under occupancy and you will be under occupying until your son is 10 even if they do you will still be subject to the 'room tax'

Oh and for the people on the thread who for what ever reason are delighting in saying its not a room tax its a benefit reduction yes it may be but the room tax is the name that even housing officers are using to describe it as are the media and loads of people. Its how people are referring towards it that's all.

rhondajean · 31/03/2013 15:52

Who said they are working part time happy?

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs · 31/03/2013 15:55

But seriouslychocolatey - why make the rules that harsh for Social Housing Tenants when they could have put Rent Controls in place (like in many countries on the Continent) that prevent the LL's charging so much to YOU that you are over your LHA allowance?

Rather than make the situation just as bad for those in Social Housing, Rent Controls would make things better for Private Rented tenants.

The Government had a choice. They could either choose to pass the pain of the cuts onto the LL's, some of whom would not be able to pay their current mortgage, and would lose those houses AND have the side effect of lowering rents due to increased availability of housing...

Or they could choose to pass on the pain of the cuts to the poorest people in the country, regardless of the fact that these people are already living at or below the minimum they need to survive, leaving hoards of them homeless / living in tents.

Guess what they chose?

It wasn't going to be Rent Controls that hurt LL's when the majority of politicians have substantial rental property portfolio's, was it? That would be like a Turkey voting for Christmas.

I think it is a massive conflict of interest that people who stand to lose out if Rent Controls were put in place are the very people deciding whether to put Rent Controls in place or to cut welfare help to the poorest in Society.

You know those tent cities in America? They are heading here. You will see them on any open spaces near you within the next two years.

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs · 31/03/2013 15:58

Even those who do a mutual exchange will be subject to the 'bedroom tax' as they will have CHOSEN to rent a property larger than their needs.

The LHA will still only be paid for the TWO bedrooms that Hali is currently entitled to. Future entitlement will not change your current liability for payment of the bedroom tax if you are in a property larger than you need, as per the new rules that come into force nationally tomorrow.

williaminajetfighter · 31/03/2013 15:59

Sorry I am in favor of this in premise, but the way it's articulated and put in action doesn't seem to be working obviously from the various anecdotes on here and in the news.

I do think the government has to cut their bill somehow.

I don't think everyone living in social housing or in council housing is the most deprived or disabled or unable to get by but this thread talks about them like they are children who need to be mollycoddled and looked after from cradle to grave by the government. People are already given housing at a completely reduced rate not akin to private sector or market prices.

I do think we have to look after our most disadvantaged but HB covers many more than the most disadvantaged.

I am not from the UK originally and honestly baffled at the amount of government involvement in housing and the amount of money the government provides to subsidize housing. The bill is enormous. It never even dawned on me to head to my local authority when I left home to get a council house and that's not because I'm rich, because I'm not, but because it wasn't even on my radar nor offered where I am from.

I just would prefer less government involvement because, for one thing, when so much of one's life involves relying on local government one can get easily f*d over by government policies.

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs · 31/03/2013 15:59

Moondog - it's a bad thing because the people that can't afford the top up will have nowhere to move to. THAT'S the bad thing.

IneedAsockamnesty · 31/03/2013 16:00

Actually those who private rent and use LHA have for many years also had access to DHF so those who have legit reasons for needing a larger room can claim that. However those in social housing who had the extra room allocated due to need and still need it are subject to slightly different criteria on the DHF so many things that would be considered for a private rent tenant will not be for a social tenant.

But some things will mean a DHF payment.

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs · 31/03/2013 16:06

In my area, the DHF payment is VERY conditional, AND will be reassessed every month. So you could get the top up one month, but not for the next four months, say.

And towards the end of the financial year, the DHF will be 'empty', because expected demand in my area FAR outstrips actual NEED, therefore there will be many, many people who get no top up from around January onwards.

This is direct from my Local Councillor, who is disabled and in social housing himself, in an adapted property WITH AN ADDITIONAL BEDROOM as due to his electric wheelchair, special bed etc. his wife needs an additional room as his NHS bed, as before mentioned, is NOT a double, and with his wheelchair in the room, there is no room for a bed for his wife.

He may have enough income to pay his rent without recourse to HB, but he fully understands the plight awaiting those that don't!

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 31/03/2013 16:08

Happymumofone - that is a silly silly comment, can you really not understand that some people have bad luck, like being hit by a car, AFTER having their children, so then they can't work?

Honestly, life is not a fairy tale where good people who work hard get their just rewards. Shit happens. That is why we have a welfare state.

FasterStronger · 31/03/2013 16:09

My comment prevously about shifting the wrong sort of housing stock private landlords was about the effects of better utilising social housing. E.g
if there are too many social 3 bed and not enough social 1 bed, by better utilising the housing stock as a whole, private landlords, should have to be more competitive to house the remaining hb tenants, particularly if their property is not right for the local populations needs, too large or small.

It does shift more risk to lls, rather than the state.

if all hb is paid directly to tenants, will it make no hb clauses harder to enforce? Would a LL know where their tenants' rent came from?

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 31/03/2013 16:15

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the concept of taking 'personal responsibility' for bad luck.

Dawndonna · 31/03/2013 16:17

I love how its all the governments fault, never the person who choose to have x number of children or work part time and claim the rest of the income from the state etc. There has to be an element of personal responsibility.

The new ruling seems to put all renters claiming HB on an equal footing, that seems fair. People with spare rooms have the choice of paying for that luxury or downsizing to a house the correct size for their needs.

In amongst your sweeping statement on every benefits thread, perhaps you'd care to explain where the correct housing is going to come from. The rest of us would love to know, as would many, many housing associations and local authorities.
You do come onto every thread, state your opinion and bugger off. Where are your facts and figures, how does the 'equal footing' work? If those with spare rooms are of pensionable age and are refusing to give up their homes (in many cases with good reason), where is the available housing?

Viviennemary · 31/03/2013 16:21

This thread is really annoying me. What about families in over-crowded conditions that are suffering because some people think it is their right to be housed somewhere that is deemed to large for them. I'd like to see social housing being for a set period of time. And when your circumstances change then you should move and let somebody else take advantage of this priviledge. The I'm all right Jack and who cares about other people who have been on the waiting list for years as long as I don't have to pay a single penny extra for a spare room. I'm afraid I think that is incredibly entitled and selfish.

moondog · 31/03/2013 16:22

Couthy, a lot of people have to move when they can't afford housing.
I have to choose where I live based on my income. I don't see that as being intrinsically unfair. If there isn't the demand at the outrageous levels private landlords demand, rents will fall and that will benefit everyone.

Willamina, you are so right here
'I just would prefer less government involvement because, for one thing, when so much of one's life involves relying on local government one can get easily f*d over by government policies.'

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 31/03/2013 16:25

Vivienne - you shouldn't attack the few people fortunate enough to have secure housing because successive governments have deliberately ignored housing needs of many other people.

Do you get angry with people who have food to eat because they are not starving like some others? No.

It should not be a race to the bottom.

BumpingFuglies · 31/03/2013 16:26

People with spare rooms have the choice of paying for that luxury or downsizing to a house the correct size for their needs.

Something of a Hobson's Choice. What if they don't HAVE the extra money or there isn't a house available to downsize to? Rather the whole point of the thread HappyMummy.