Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

princessdon

ijwia wrote: »

you trolling

Not at all and seeing as you are new to the forum I'll explain why. I don't like inequality. In recent years those in the private sector have been subject to this in the fact that they can only claim the bedrooms they need via LHR. Social Housing benefit claimants are currently and have been exempt, creating inequality. The two groups should be treat the same IMO, this has been a long time coming that the two groups are treat the same.

How would you feel if LHR kept this and HB lost it (the situation was reversed)? It would be unfair and unequal.

Now if you had asked my personal opinions on this I'd have said the following.

I have huge sympathy for those with disabilities and carers. Not all will hit the "need for a spare room" but they may do so. Eg someone with severe MH issues and their partner is a carer may clearly need an additional room to get some sleep and their own form of respite. They should not be penalised and I think it needs looked at for that group, of that I am very vocal.

Those that are on minimum benefits (JSA at £71 or £56) will have to pay a vast percentage of their benefits and this will ensure they cannnot look for a job as can't afford to, again I think this is unfair.

Pensioners (who due to PC) have the largest amount of disposable income are not affected, I think this is unfair.

I personally think a percentage of your means tested benefits (eg 10%) of all in hand means tested benefits (so DLA is excluded) would have been a fairer way to do this. So a family with CTC and CB would pay more than a singleton. Much fairer way IMO.

BUT... What ever they do for HB needs to be reapplied to LHR claimants to ensure equality. Private sector clients are being treat differently and this is unfair, do the same for both. For me it's that simple.

I cannot see why when they changed LHR they didn't amend HB - It's unfair to treat people differently.

That doesn't mean I think the idea is "great" or doesn't need more thought (as above) but I welcome the two groups being treat more fairly as someone who is impartial.

Is it right that a singleton with 1 or no child at home still has a 4 bed home when families are on waiting lists paying 30% of their benefits to private landlords? Not in my opinion. The solution is more social housing and dealing with the extortionate Private Rents.

So no, I am not trolling but do believe that both groups should be treat the same or as equal as can be to prevent discrimination.

Morlock

Pippin12 wrote: »

Hi ijwia, HB claimants in the private sector have always been subject to under occupancy rules - so for example have always been penalised for extra bedrooms etc.

Bedroom tax will not, and has not, ever applied to private tenants. Also, until very recently, private tenants could pocket up to £15 per week of any excess rent that was below the LHA threshold.

princessdon

Morlock wrote: »

Bedroom tax will not, and has not, ever applied to private tenants. Also, until very recently, private tenants could pocket up to £15 per week of any excess rent that was below the LHA threshold.

Private tenants will only be given an allowance based on the rooms they need. They can't claim a 3 bed for a couple with 1 child.

If they find a cheaper landlord then of course it is conceivable that they get a 3 bed paid for when only entitled to a 2 bed. It's very rare that happens though. Most people I know in private rental are paying a percentage of their rental especially the ones who are only entitled to a shared housing rate. So yes although it's not the same as a bedroom tax they can only claim for the bedrooms they need so is very similar.

The £15 is another inequality that was a long time coming too and should never have been allowed.

Morlock

princessdon wrote: »

If they find a cheaper landlord then of course it is conceivable that they get a 3 bed paid for when only entitled to a 2 bed. It's very rare that happens though.

Is it very rare, how do you know that? Under-occupancy in the private sector dwarfs that in the public sector, many under-occupiers are home owners of course, but how many are under-occupying tenants with full rent covered by LHA?

Without knowing that number, you cannot state that it is very rare with any degree of certainty.

princessdon

I go by what I see. I visit approx 50 families a week and beleive it or not they all have landlords who like profit. They set their rates at the LHR to the penny. They use the LHR as a guide to set their rental if you like. A landlord is unlikely to accept lower payments than they can due to their business.

Of course there are exceptions (not all landlords are money grabbing) but the vast majority of landlords will not undercharge when they know they can make more money.

Dunroamin

Morlock wrote: »

Is it very rare, how do you know that? Under-occupancy in the private sector dwarfs that in the public sector, many under-occupiers are home owners of course, but how many are under-occupying tenants with full rent covered by LHA?

Without knowing that number, you cannot state that it is very rare with any degree of certainty.

Considering that LHA is only intended to cover the lowest 30% of rents and also considering the number of people on MSE who report having to top up their LHA themselves, it seems very unlikely that there are many LHA claimants under occupying property, unlike in the public sector.

Comparing the situation to home owners is obviously too stupid to even address.

Morlock

princessdon wrote: »

I go by what I see. I visit approx 50 families a week and beleive it or not they all have landlords who like profit. They set their rates at the LHR to the penny. They use the LHR as a guide to set their rental if you like. A landlord is unlikely to accept lower payments than they can due to their business.

Of course there are exceptions (not all landlords are money grabbing) but the vast majority of landlords will not undercharge when they know they can make more money.

Again, this is all anecdotal, you state that "Most people I know in private rental are paying a percentage of their rental especially the ones who are only entitled to a shared housing rate."

And then state, "...they all have landlords who like profit. They set their rates at the LHR to the penny."

The two statements contradict each other.

What would you consider to be "very rare", a dozen, a few hundred, a few thousand? That's a few thousand who can continue to live in under-occupied properties in the private sector who are not subject to bedroom tax, compared to the few thousand (plus) in social housing who will lose their homes. Why not just implement bedroom tax for private tenants too? Then there will be no question of inequality.

princessdon

No they do not contradict. Many took tenancies before the changes so their rent was set then LHR went down to the 30%. They were left with pay or leave. Also many were working and now lost their jobs so their landlords will only ajust slightly. Also many take the hit on the bedrooms as so will pay a 1 bed rental and get LHR as shared room as they don't wish to share.
Just like many SH rentals will pay the under occupancy as they don't wish to move. Some will move, others will stay.

But you are correct I should have worded it as a "minimum". That is the minimum they will charge. It makes sense to a business to charge what they can, even if they accept lower payments the tenants are often put on 30 day rolling notice, they are then forced to pay the extra (or a proportion) or take a short notice in the hope someone more profitable doesn't come along.

Re the issue of implementing the bedroom tax in private - I think it would be more fairer, but I am not sure how it would work in practise, but yes they should not be given extra advantages.

I also think that SMI should look at rooms too in order to have more equality.

Morlock

Dunroamin wrote: »

Comparing the situation to home owners is obviously too stupid to even address.

Not that anyone did address that, but is it such a stupid idea?

Considering the current UK housing crisis, the fact that owner-occupiers have benefited more from government spending than social housing tenants have over the last few decades, and the massive under-occupancy rates in the private sector, perhaps it is time to start recouping some of that expense.

Bedroom tax for owner-occupiers would encourage downsizing and the renting out of spare rooms, relieving pressure on the housing crisis and generating income for the treasury. It sounds like a very sensible option.

princessdon

Morlock wrote: »

princessdon knows all about that.

i am not biting but genuinely interested in what you mean by that?