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:
YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 31/03/2013 16:28

Moondog - house prices both rental and purchase are not going to drop as a result of this policy.

Also, it is very hard to move when disabled or needing care etc.

I have also moved through choice to cut costs or seek work but that is NOT THE SAME as being forced out of your home for no good reason.

HappyMummyOfOne · 31/03/2013 16:29

Yellow, yes some will have had a change in circumstances and need help for a short while whilst they re-adjust but thousands wont have.

You can read on here alone about having a child and not wanting to use childcare so they did so knowing the state would pay, people on benefits being encouraged to have another child even though they cant support it as "babies cost little" according to MN and posts asking what is the best number of hours to work to maximise benefits etc. Thats just on here alone so imagine the true number. The fact is many on benefits are on them by choice, its their entitlement as they see it as thats what Labour had them to believe.

Those who pay their own way in life have to live where they can afford and have the number of children they can afford. That most certainly also needs to apply to those on benefits. Contraception has never been so readily available and different methods can be used together to ensure no "accidents". Workers dont get handed a bigger house or a payrise every time they have a child so unfair that those that have children without the means to support them do.

You can see the sense of entitlement coming out in people more and more as time goes on, more moaning that their benefits are being capped to £26k (despite that being the equivalent of a £32k salary beng handed to them) or that they havent yet been given a huge home as how can they expect their 3/4/5/6 children to live in a small home. Thats why so many didnt vote labour at the last elections, many wanted an end to the constant handouts to those that choose to claim.

montmartre · 31/03/2013 16:31

Moony- it was from March 21st, Home Truths about the Housing Market by Alex Morton

Viviennemary · 31/03/2013 16:31

I get annoyed with people whining about this when there are families who can only dream of the accommodation they are lucky enough to have.

infamouspoo · 31/03/2013 16:31

''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.'

You are aware this hits disabled people and those with disabled kids HappyMummy? Clearly hose people didnt make that 'lifestyle choice' and the 'luxury' of needing a room with medical equipment and a wheelchair.
ffs

rhondajean · 31/03/2013 16:34

Right so we should get annoyed with the people who have managed to get housing when the actual problem is that there isnt enough housing?l

Wow people get suckered in by the rhetoric don't they, which I suppose is what is wanted as it stops actual questions regarding allocation of resources.

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 31/03/2013 16:34

Happymumofone - because I am a caring person, if you, who begrudge a little to anyone else, get ill I would wish you to cared for to my standards not yours.

You are utterly wrong and your views are basically simplistic nonsense but I wish you happiness anyway.

rhondajean · 31/03/2013 16:36

There are many of us who will not (at present ) be personally effected by the changes because we do not receive any benefits/ own our homes but can still see what is happening.

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 31/03/2013 16:37

Oh Vivienne, can you hear how mean you sound? Surely there should be a hme for everyone, not jealous squabbling because there is a shortage.

BumpingFuglies · 31/03/2013 16:40

You can read on here alone about having a child and not wanting to use childcare so they did so knowing the state would pay, people on benefits being encouraged to have another child even though they cant support it as "babies cost little" according to MN and posts asking what is the best number of hours to work to maximise benefits etc. Thats just on here alone so imagine the true number. The fact is many on benefits are on them by choice, its their entitlement as they see it as thats what Labour had them to believe.

Can you link to such posts?

moondog · 31/03/2013 16:40

Thanks Mont.
Still trying to find it online.

Yellow, regarding this comment, I'm not sure what you mean. My dh moved to work in another country because otherwise we wouldn't be able to afford the lifestyle we want so in that sense, and by your defnition he was forced out of the land of his birth. Neither of us see it as anything but responding to circumstance.

'I have also moved through choice to cut costs or seek work but that is NOT THE SAME as being forced out of your home for no good reason. '

IneedAsockamnesty · 31/03/2013 16:41

Couthy I know that but my post was aimed at those who think ohhh I'm in private and we have to do xyz so fuck you for being in council.

Out of interest did you know that more money than this charge will save has been ear marked for DHF so it won't even save money.

Wankers

Viviennemary · 31/03/2013 16:42

I'm truly sorry if I sounded mean. But there was a thread not long ago about somebody with a baby and toddler in a second floor flat and no lift dreading the summer Now that person should have priority over the person who wants a spare room when their family visit. There isn't enough to go round. So changes need to be made. People in private rental are only on a six month lease. They are the ones who deserve sympathy. In my opinion in any case.

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 31/03/2013 16:44

But you CHOSE it didn't you.

moondog · 31/03/2013 16:46

Er no
If there's no work theres no work.
You go somewhere else to find it.

Hmm
IneedAsockamnesty · 31/03/2013 16:47

The ones who fucking well want a spare room for when their bloody family visit are mostly sodding exempt from the stupid bloody rule.

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 31/03/2013 16:48

Vivienne, you need to look into the real, overarching issues. This is systematic long term refusal to care about ALL people struggling at the lower end of the housing market.

Six mnth rentals, crap landlords, not enough council/social housing, over inflated house prices, buy to let landlords - the whole bloody lot is part of the same problem. Stop squabbling over the crumbs and find a way to get a decent and just slice of the cake.

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 31/03/2013 16:50

Well I have done that and don't consider myself in at all the same boat as someone who is permanently disabled being kicked out of their home.

Do you really think it is the same?

FasterStronger · 31/03/2013 16:52

We are a small island with a high population. There will always be a housing shortage. We are all going to live longer.

We rely on other countries now for food and energy. We cannot keep building.

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 31/03/2013 16:53

That was to Monndog btw.

moondog · 31/03/2013 16:59

Using emotive language muddies the argument and weakens your stance Yellow.

YellowandGreenandRedandBlue · 31/03/2013 17:03

Nothing emotive about my language IMO, I suppose I can switch 'kicked out' for the blander but essentially identical 'evicted' and ask again:

Well I have done that and don't consider myself in at all the same boat as someone who is permanently disabled being evicted from their home.

Do you really think it is the same?

MiniTheMinx · 31/03/2013 17:03

seriouslychocolatey, it is not the fault of people in social housing, it is the fault of successive governments failing to build social housing.

The reason for no social housing is because pushing home ownership lines the pockets of bankers and their wealthy friends the developers. The whole thing is based on debt. Debt encumbered home owners never demand better pay, never down tools even if they have to they'll eat worms.

I live in the south east where a lot of families are in private rentals, low wages and in receipt of HB sitting alongside under occupied HA housing stock. Elderly people taking up 3/4 bed HA properties. These are the houses required to move the over occupied families into but the elderly are exempt.

However I see retirement flats being built which are for private ownership which is of no consequence because elderly home owners can choose where to live and whether to downsize. These flats are hugely expensive and out of the question for those taking up much needed 3/4 bed HA homes.

Why? again because house building exclusively for home ownership sups up capital surpluses/investment and creates profits for the developer/investor nexus. The same people we repeatedly bail out, the same people that tap us for subsidies.

In principle moving people on to smaller properties so that families can be moved out of tax payer subsidised private properties makes sense but whilst this game of musical homes is played out, many people will be made homeless costing the tax payer more money. But then cutting the deficit/debt is not the name of the game is it? the name of the game is neo-liberalism, the rules are get rich at the expense of the workers, the poor and the tax payer.

infamouspoo · 31/03/2013 17:03

why is stating facts 'emotive'. Disabled people are going to be made homeless. We should feel emotion over this. Anger and shame mostly.

moondog · 31/03/2013 17:08

What is your definition of 'disabled'?

Swipe left for the next trending thread