Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

mazza111

princessdon wrote: »

I just did a rightmove search on Glasgow and there were an awful lot of 1 beds under LHR, so this will be dependant on area.

Didn't look at Glasgow tbh. Although the OP may use Glasgow as a general location. I used my local town and came up with 7. Although when people south of the border ask me I normally say Glasgow to save going through the whole thing

princessdon

mazza111 wrote: »

I'll try and put it better...

1 bedroom flats here.. Just had a check. There are 7 available to rent in the immediate area. Ranging from £350/month to £400/month. Now where the logic doesn't come in, is that benefits would be happy to pay this for a single person on HB (LHA) but wouldn't be happy to pay less to have the same person living in a 2 bedroom property. While I know this isn't the only reason for doing it, to save money, it seems that they won't save much money in those circumstances. You could say it will free up social housing, but that would just be one more property laying empty in the private sector.

There are actually a few 2 bedroom properties laying empty in my street at the moment. And our council has a pretty good turn around time in all honesty, but most people are looking for bigger than 2 bedroom properties, hence why I don't think they should be included. They aint gonna be able to house all the people that are in 2 bedroom properties, into one bedroom properties if you see what I mean.

I can see where the OP feels like they are being punished, when that was the house they were awarded for their needs. Especially when you see that a 1 bed private let would cost more than their 2 bed council let.

So where do you draw the line?

There has to be a line, there are people living in homes too big for them and the tax payers are paying for high rentals in private properties.

If you disclude 2/1 in SH do you then amend the private rental to equal?

Then others say they are discriminated against etc.

There has to be a line whether it is bedrooms/tax limits/CB limits and it's not always fair on some individuals - overall it is usally fair for the majority.

sammyjammy

mazza111 wrote: »

I'll try and put it better...

1 bedroom flats here.. Just had a check. There are 7 available to rent in the immediate area. Ranging from £350/month to £400/month. Now where the logic doesn't come in, is that benefits would be happy to pay this for a single person on HB (LHA) but wouldn't be happy to pay less to have the same person living in a 2 bedroom property. While I know this isn't the only reason for doing it, to save money, it seems that they won't save much money in those circumstances. You could say it will free up social housing, but that would just be one more property laying empty in the private sector.

There are actually a few 2 bedroom properties laying empty in my street at the moment. And our council has a pretty good turn around time in all honesty, but most people are looking for bigger than 2 bedroom properties, hence why I don't think they should be included. They aint gonna be able to house all the people that are in 2 bedroom properties, into one bedroom properties if you see what I mean.

I can see where the OP feels like they are being punished, when that was the house they were awarded for their needs. Especially when you see that a 1 bed private let would cost more than their 2 bed council let.

You need to consider the fact that the council /HA are responsible for their properties in that they have to maintain them, insure them etc as well as pay the staff to manage them, this has to be added into the cost of Socail housing you can't just do a rent comparison.

mazza111

I do agree with you but in areas where there are council houses laying empty..... It just seems bonkers to move people out into more expensive housing that will end up costing the tax payers more in HB. I know this isn't the case in all areas btw, and my little deprived corner of the country, maybe unique in the amount of properties laying empty, but I've said it before, that's how my dd ended up getting her 1 bedroom place, because it had been empty for a while because no one wanted it.

Social housing will have to be maintained whether there are people living in it or not. The costs are always going to be there for that.

I just think as with all, a wee bit of common sense should be applied. unfortunately with government benefits, it's not really applied.

Morlock

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I am an owner -occupier and have two spare rooms (three if you count the dining room). I have a small Victorian terraced house and have had lodgers over the years. My husband and I paid for our house out of our salaries, no-one helped us and it is now paid for, so why should we be expected to downsize?

Part of the reason that house prices and rents have rocketed over the decades is down to various tax relief incentives introduced by Thatcher's government. You have directly benefited from these 'subsidies', the UK has a massive housing shortage, why shouldn't the government now recoup some of that tax relief through bedroom tax on owner-occupiers? If you can't afford to pay it, get another lodger or sell-up and downsize, freeing up your home for those who need the space more than you.

"Who really gets government subsidised housing?

Official figures show government spends more money on supporting owner-occupiers than social tenants

Let's start with the sector that's really cushioned by the government – that's owner-occupiers, especially those who have paid off their mortgages. Of course, significant benefits to mortgage payers were wiped out when tax relief was cut by Margaret Thatcher's government and eventually ended 12 years ago. But all owners still enjoy capital gains tax relief, currently worth almost £6bn.

Those with no or only small mortgages also benefit from not being taxed on the value of their home (as used to happen through the old schedule A tax). This tax relief is now valued at over £11bn. Pooling these benefits and adding back in the stamp duty and inheritance tax of approximately £5bn that owners do pay, the net subsidy received is still a surprising £12bn per year.

Of course it's true that no government is likely to restore schedule A tax, but even disregarding it the outcome is that owners pay no net tax at all. As Professor Steve Wilcox points out, the existence of these tax advantages means that house prices are far higher than they might otherwise be, benefiting existing owners at the expense of those struggling to enter the market."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2012/jan/27/government-subsidised-social-housing-rent

barnaby-bear

mazza111 wrote: »

Didn't look at Glasgow tbh. Although the OP may use Glasgow as a general location. I used my local town and came up with 7. Although when people south of the border ask me I normally say Glasgow to save going through the whole thing

I find this a big difference between working private renters and social tenants, moving from the immediate area is seen as unfeasible whereas in reality a 30mile/1hour+ commute is pretty normal to a lot of people. I'm also surprised at some people's enthusiasm to stay in areas where they say there are no jobs. Most working young people who grew up in London aren't going to find anywhere within an hour of where they grew up - so I think for the rest of the country the expectations of fairly insecure tenure and little choice on area (it's what you can afford), plus expecting to share houses/rent the smallest is so normal that the social tenant's expectation just seems so out of line with normal now....

Mara69

ijwia wrote: »

i'm not moving and im not paying extra if i can help it

Well, you'll have to do one or the other no matter how much you hate the idea.

lighting_up_the_chalice

ijwia wrote: »

back to the point though this section that includes this paragraph

does this mean that private tennants housing benefit, before LHA came in to being means that they will not be having their benefit cut ?


how can there be 2 systems in place one for private tennants before 2008 that don't have to pay extra rent for extra rooms and another rule for social housing tennants before 2008 that do have to pay for extra rooms ?


isn't that being discriminatory to social housing tennants ?


or am i drunk and tired and have got the wrong end of the stick ?

There are 2 systems in place now. Social Housing tenants get their full rent covered by HB regardless of the property size or rent charged. Private tenants are awarded a set amount, or allowance, which equates to the cheapest available properties in their area which meet their households need.

Isn't that being discriminatory to privately renting tenants?

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

Is it very rare, how do you know that? ............
Without knowing that number, you cannot state that it is very rare with any degree of certainty.

A simple look at the rents charged via Rightmove compared to LHA rates?

lighting_up_the_chalice

Dunroamin wrote: »

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

Is it?

We are in the midst of a national housing crisis which, for the foreseeable future, is only going to get worse. Would it really be so bad to offer the same "encouragement" to owner/occs to downsize?