We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Housing Benefit under occupancy Help
Comments
-
Are you sure that your desire for separate rooms is due to disability and not personal problems? It was only a few months ago that you posted this.
"oh no we re both disabled so both dont work but spend as little time together as possible he is always in his room thank goodness.
its our anerversary on either the 21 or 22nd or 23rd of this month.
we have been married about 17 or 18 years cant remember think it was 1995? kids in there widom have booked us a weekend away dreading it, after i said aint the sea beautiful and he said yes then what will we speak about.. emm"
(Apologies to sunnyone for adding this on to one of her posts by mistake.:o)
yes thats true, thats why i spoke of murder and other things going on.
on the plus side though we did have a nice time and even talked. :eek:0 -
lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »2 doubles AND a sofa bed??? So YOU'RE the cause of the housing crisis!!
Let's have a look at possible reasons why there is a housing crisis:
Oh look, it's mainly caused by under-occupancy in the owner-occupier section of the housing market.0 -
Och don't get me wrong, I do think those in Social Housing should downsize when they don't need the room, if it's viable. 40% is still a lot of housing that's under occupied and if it frees up some social housing then it's a good thing imo. It's those that can't downsize without it costing more that's worrying me like the ones I've mentioned before.4 Stones and 0 pounds or 25.4kg lighter :j0
-
Let's have a look at possible reasons why there is a housing crisis:
Oh look, it's mainly caused by under-occupancy in the owner-occupier section of the housing market.
As previously stated, the government can only do that which they have control over. The over-representation of benefit claimants within the Social Housing sector mean that this is the sector they can most influence. But all are governed by the same question... Can you afford it? Can the owner/occ afford the bigger house and higher CT? Can the private renter afford the higher rent of a bigger house, or the higher top-up if claiming LHA? Can the Social Housing tenant afford the higher rent of the larger property, or the higher top up if claiming HB? The government passes on a charge to ALL sectors who under-occupy. Some can afford it, some can't.0 -
lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »As previously stated, the government can only do that which they have control over.
And the government can generally take control of whatever it sees fit, including implementing bedroom tax on under-occupied, owner-occupied properties to encourage downsizing.
And as previously stated, the cost savings are not guaranteed, it relies on tenants staying put and absorbing that extra cost. If everyone affected moved to smaller properties, the majority being in the private sector as social housing stock is not designed to accommodate all who want to downsize, the overall cost will increase.The over-representation of benefit claimants within the Social Housing sector mean that this is the sector they can most influence. But all are governed by the same question... Can you afford it? Can the owner/occ afford the bigger house and higher CT? Can the private renter afford the higher rent of a bigger house, or the higher top-up if claiming LHA? Can the Social Housing tenant afford the higher rent of the larger property, or the higher top up if claiming HB? The government passes on a charge to ALL sectors who under-occupy. Some can afford it, some can't.
Also, the areas that are most affected by under-occupancy in the public sector do not generally have a problem with under-occupancy. Areas with high rates of over-occupancy have low rates of under-occupancy.0 -
And the government can generally take control of whatever it sees fit, including implementing bedroom tax on under-occupied, owner-occupied properties to encourage downsizing.
My previous posts clearly indicate that I would be in favour of such a move.And as previously stated, the cost savings are not guaranteed, it relies on tenants staying put and absorbing that extra cost. If everyone affected moved to smaller properties, the majority being in the private sector as social housing stock is not designed to accommodate all who want to downsize, the overall cost will increase.
No they wouldn't. A single person moves from a 3 bed Social Housing unit into the private sector, to be replaced by a 4/5/6 person household who would otherwise claim LHA. MASSIVE savings to be had.Also, the areas that are most affected by under-occupancy in the public sector do not generally have a problem with under-occupancy. Areas with high rates of over-occupancy have low rates of under-occupancy.
Well, one of the solutions to the massive over-use of expensive, unsatisfactory temp accommodation in high demand areas is to "encourage" a move to permanent accommodation in lower demand areas, thus saving money and reducing homelessness. I'm sure you would want to see a reduction in homelessness... wouldn't you?0 -
Let's have a look at possible reasons why there is a housing crisis:
Oh look, it's mainly caused by under-occupancy in the owner-occupier section of the housing market.
And?? I have 2 spare bedrooms although I use 1 as a walk in wardrobe and 1 as an office.
I bought my own home so why does this apply? If I was ever to receive SMI (which I won't and can't) then I'd accept that, is that data for SMI claimants or the UK as a whole?0 -
lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »No they wouldn't. A single person moves from a 3 bed Social Housing unit into the private sector, to be replaced by a 4/5/6 person household who would otherwise claim LHA. MASSIVE savings to be had.
The majority of properties potentially freed up will be two-bedroom properties in areas where there are minimal under-occupancy and over-occupancy problems. Unless those on the local waiting list specifically require two-bedroom properties, it will be of no consequence whatsoever.
It could lead to a situation where there are a lot of empty, two-bedroom, social housing properties with no suitable candidates to fill them. The demand for two-bedroom properties is low in that area, and those who want to rent, but would under-occupy, cannot afford to rent them.lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »Well, one of the solutions to the massive over-use of expensive, unsatisfactory temp accommodation in high demand areas is to "encourage" a move to permanent accommodation in lower demand areas, thus saving money and reducing homelessness. I'm sure you would want to see a reduction in homelessness... wouldn't you?
That depends on peoples' willingness to move to other areas, potentially hundreds of miles from any family. I am sure that the homeless list would be reduced significantly if candidates were willing to relocate. Considering that the majority of those affected by the bedroom tax are disabled, perhaps it is not as easy for them to move half way across the country away from friends and family.0 -
The majority of properties potentially freed up will be two-bedroom properties in areas where there are minimal under-occupancy and over-occupancy problems. Unless those on the local waiting list specifically require two-bedroom properties, it will be of no consequence whatsoever.
It could lead to a situation where there are a lot of empty, two-bedroom, social housing properties with no suitable candidates to fill them. The demand for two-bedroom properties is low in that area, and those who want to rent, but would under-occupy, cannot afford to rent them.
In most areas, the highest demand in Social Housing is for 2 bed properties. All those first time mums, see?That depends on peoples' willingness to move to other areas, potentially hundreds of miles from any family. I am sure that the homeless list would be reduced significantly if candidates were willing to relocate. Considering that the majority of those affected by the bedroom tax are disabled, perhaps it is not as easy for them to move half way across the country away from friends and family.
But if only a proportion do, it still eases up the rest of the system, doesn't it?0 -
Och don't get me wrong, I do think those in Social Housing should downsize when they don't need the room, if it's viable. 40% is still a lot of housing that's under occupied and if it frees up some social housing then it's a good thing imo. It's those that can't downsize without it costing more that's worrying me like the ones I've mentioned before.
This as just made me chuckle...after reading the 'Och' i read the rest in my head with a scottish accent:rotfl:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards