Bedroom tax and private rent

sniggings

Morlock wrote: »

I think most people who are affected by this tax are in the same position. Moving out of their current social housing property will increase the housing benefit bill, as an equivalent, private property will cost more to rent but not be subject to the tax. The private property being within the LHA limit.

with all the exceptions, for old people, disabled, I doubt this new rule will save any money, families with kids are unlikely to be hit as not many families have spare bedrooms, young single people are now on shared allowance anyway and those with their own flats have more than likely been given only a one bedroom place, for a young single person to be even given a single place is rare, all but never are they given more than one bedroom.

I thought this law came about because a lot of older people are living in 3-4 bedroom places and it was meant to get them to move, but what have the government done..excluded them again.

So for the few people that this rule will affect, I think they will not move but just pay the 14 or 24% and stay where they are, so all the Government has done is tax the poorest again, whilst not raising any funds and most likely costing the tax payer for the admin and appeal process that will be put in place and not freeing up any family houses.

BigAunty

sniggings wrote: »

...

I thought this law came about because a lot of older people are living in 3-4 bedroom places and it was meant to get them to move, but what have the government done..excluded them again.

...

I do wonder how many underoccupied properties there are that pensioners currently occupy. I imagine they were ring-fenced because it was political suicide, a real vote killer, to be seen to be evicting the elderly from their life long properties.

However, the next generation won't have this problem once the current lot have died out.

sniggings wrote: »

...

So for the few people that this rule will affect, I think they will not move but just pay the 14 or 24% and stay where they are, so all the Government has done is tax the poorest again, whilst not raising any funds and most likely costing the tax payer for the admin and appeal process that will be put in place and not freeing up any family houses.

Really, I don't think the admin on the appeal process will be onerous, it's pretty much 'computer says no', there's no appeal as such.

It has the potential not just to save millions of pounds in housing benefit by making those in properties larger than their needs no longer be so heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, but will also go some way to alleviating the social housing backlog and general housing shortage by reducing the number of unoccupied rooms.

Social housing tenants make up the majority of HB claims (68%). This policy affects 660,000 social housing tenants who are HB claimants with 540,000 of them having one spare room and 140,000 having 2 spare rooms or more.

As a third of social housing tenants claiming HB are under-occupying this is a significantly expensive and wasteful use of a rather scarce resource - 660,000 empty bedrooms in the UK!!.

"...recent research from the Housing Futures Network reported the sorts of actions that under occupying tenants thought that they may take, if faced with a reduction in Housing Benefit. The results suggested that::
• Around 25% were quite or very likely to downsize to smaller accommodation;
• Nearly 30% would be quite or very likely to move into work or increase their hours; and
•10-15% would offer out their spare room to a lodger or a family member."

sniggings

BigAunty the 67% figure includes over 65 year olds that this rule does not apply too, it also includes single people in one bed properties, disabled people too, so the figure of 67% whilst sounds bad is not the true picture, which in turn reduces the other figures you quote.

I wonder what % of the 67% who have spare rooms are in the group these changes hit, my bet will be there are more older people with spare rooms than families or young people.

I agree there is a problem but feel that this is not the answer, it is only guess work at the min but I would think more people will just pay the 14/24% than move, as moving is not easy or cheap to do.

As for the admin costs, it seems it's cost effective to do this but not cost effective to stop benefits to rich pensioners who just happen to be the Tory parties biggest supporters.

out of just over 5 million on HB nearly 4 million are single, 1.75 of those being single, the rest with children, wow those figures are :eek:

BigAunty

sniggings wrote: »

BigAunty the 67% figure includes over 65 year olds that this rule does not apply too, it also includes single people in one bed properties, disabled people too, so the figure of 67% whilst sounds bad is not the true picture, which in turn reduces the other figures you quote.

Apologies, you are right, though it does go to show that the majority of social housing tenants are on HB.

The 660,000 social housing tenants that this new policy affects makes up 31% of all working age tenants receiving HB so 1 in 3 social housing tenants under pension age do receive HB AND have spare rooms.

Robisere

First, let me say that my wife and myself are late 60's disabled Seniors living in a small 2-bed Sheltered Housing property. We came here from a large, 2-bed private bungalow which is now lived in by a family. Before that, as younger working people with 2 children, we lived in our own 3-bed house. So we have covered all the bases, so to speak.

Second, will some of the people posting here stop kicking Seniors? I agree that there are many living in under occupied accommodation that should be family homes, but there are several sides to that story. Both families and Seniors are suffering from the abysmally low supply of housing in this country. There is not enough housing stock for either parties and this government will not even consider building more Social Housing. I strongly suspect that no Labour government would take that step, either. The problem was caused by Saint Maggie's fascist troops, when they sold off all the Council-owned stock, or allowed Council home tenants to buy. No one party ever replaced that lost housing stock, and the "wealth cascading down the generations" (according to Mad Maggie) dried up to a trickle.

What is needed in Britain today, is a massive effort to build more housing for both young and older people. Until that happens, the situation will not change. Our kids are in 2 different situations, both being single parents of 2 themselves. One lives in Social housing, the other in a 2 bed cottage of her own. The one in a HA house, had to wait for 7 years in a tiny private 2-bed, before finally getting the 3-bed he needed. The one in the cottage has struggled to keep everything together, but is finally managed with our help, to begin building an extension.

My point in telling you all this, is that we are all individuals, with individual requirements.

sniggings

Robisere wrote: »

Second, will some of the people posting here stop kicking Seniors? .

it's the Tories that have created this situation where each social group are pitted against each other.

As for leaving seniors out of the kicking, sorry but if there is any kicking to be done, no group should be left out just because of age, if that happens which with this government it is doing, the cuts fall harder on the rest, if a pensioner does not need the benefit they should not get it, harsh but the alternative is others being hit harder to pay for benefits that are not needed.

princessdon

sniggings wrote: »

it's the Tories that have created this situation where each social group are pitted against each other.

As for leaving seniors out of the kicking, sorry but if there is any kicking to be done, no group should be left out just because of age, if that happens which with this government it is doing, the cuts fall harder on the rest, if a pensioner does not need the benefit they should not get it, harsh but the alternative is others being hit harder to pay for benefits that are not needed.

OMG - I am agreeing with sniggings - think I need to lie down :rotfl:

I don't see anyone other than pensioners who stand to loose this who can defend the decision when pensioners get a higher rate of living than work age claimants.

sniggings

princessdon wrote: »

OMG - I am agreeing with sniggings - think I need to lie down :rotfl:

I don't see anyone other than pensioners who stand to loose this who can defend the decision when pensioners get a higher rate of living than work age claimants.

I'm sure I can fix that

eyghon23

The government has said the average amount will be £14 people end up paying, like you say , social housing is cheaper anyway so £14 is hardly going to have someone move, moving costs loads anyway, they will just pay and be worse off.


But it's £14 a week. Not a month. This makes a £56 minimum bill that people are going to have to find. Even those working will find this difficult in the current economic climate, so you are totally wrong in that it won't make someone move.

Unfortunately, this will affect people on benefits the most. If they're council / HA cannot find them another suitable property (due to a lot of people needing to do this), they will not have a lot of luck renting privately because a lot of landlords can't take on people on benefits owing to the Buy to Let Mortgages not letting them.

PippaGirl_2

Does the BT start on April 1st 2013?

I'm just thinking in my area currently there are a lot of 1-2 bedroom properties available to bid for, hardly ever a 3 bed. I will be interested to see whether the BT does indeed free up some larger homes.