Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

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.

But you're not comparing like-for-like, are you? The rental structure in the private and social sectors is completely different.

lighting_up_the_chalice

ijwia wrote: »

back to the present day and now imagine all the under occupied tennants going to the housing association looking for 1 bedroom apts

the housing cant house them all 1 bedroom apts because they don't have them so what happens then ???

Some people will have to decide to either make up the shortfall to avoid eviction, or turn to the private sector. My personal opinion is that the many advantages of social housing are worth far more than a 12% reduction in HB.

lighting_up_the_chalice

ijwia wrote: »

not everyone is an expert on benefits just like not everyone with a mortgage knows the specifics of all types of mortgages (but they should ehhh ?)

But I bet they know whether it's a repayment or an interest only/endowment.

wantsajob

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. The legislation being introduced next April brings tenants in the social sector into line with those in the private sector unfortunately.

It depends on the rent cost of a property in the private sector, and you're given an amount based on the number of bedrooms you require. That's very different because landlords can ask what they like for their property per month - unfortunately - and this is what is destroying the housing market. Only the kind landlords will do their best to stick in line with Local Housing Allowance rates - or those that do usually leave the property in a constant state of disrepair.

lighting_up_the_chalice

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.

Yes, the private rent 1 bed would be more expensive than the SH 2 bed. But the SH 2 bed would be occupied by a family who would otherwise get the 2 bed LHA rate, a much bigger cost difference.

There is also a bigger picture to consider. By taking up the slack in the social housing sector, the demand for the private sector should reduce, thus cutting private rents and the LHA bill. Well, that's the theory.

princessdon

I think this thread really shows how people in SH do not see the disparity between SH and Private Rental and the gap that arose over recent years. Yet at the same time have the choice to move to the private rental sector and don't wish to (something the reverse can't do due to lack of availability).

mazza111

barnaby-bear wrote: »

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....

The fella's got about 60 miles each way depending on where he's working. I think people tend to stay in the immediate area because of family commitments. Like me for example, I've got a disabled daughter, just down the road, because she's just down the road I can do a lot more to support her. My disabled mother is about 10 mins drive away, so still pretty local but because of my own illness, I can't do as much for her as I'd like to, may have been able to do more if she was more local to me.

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Yes, the private rent 1 bed would be more expensive than the SH 2 bed. But the SH 2 bed would be occupied by a family who would otherwise get the 2 bed LHA rate, a much bigger cost difference.

There is also a bigger picture to consider. By taking up the slack in the social housing sector, the demand for the private sector should reduce, thus cutting private rents and the LHA bill. Well, that's the theory.

But it's still not taking into account of the lack of 1 bedroom properties. As I've said, there are 7 in this town for renting at the moment. Now if you compare that 7 to the amount of single people who may be in 2 bedroom properties at the moment.... Would be quite a struggle to find a 1 bedroom property if you see what I mean, so those who have no option are forced into paying the extra.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people downsizing. I did it when the DD left home, wish I hadn't because of unforeseen circumstances, but it's something I did believe in, I still do in many respects. I just don't think it should apply to 2 bedroom properties as in a lot of towns that's the smallest you can get. Actually, this town, but I'm sure this isn't the only town that doesn't have many 1 bedroom flats.

Then there's the dd. Who's applied to a local charity organisation for one of their specially adapted flats. They are all 2 bedroom. But the 1 bedroom flat she's in at the moment won't be much good to her if her disability gets much worse and she should need a wheelchair, it's ideal at the moment as it's on the ground floor, but has too many sharp turnings etc for a wheelchair. Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping that day is a wee while off yet, and she's working hard to prevent it, it is coming. As someone who only gets lower rate of care on DLA, she'd probably have to find the extra, even though it's adapted. I could be wrong, but most things open up when you're on middle rate of care, so I'm not 100% sure of how that would work.

So yes, maybe I could see it if there was the amount of properties to go around of that size, but it's also a big ask to give up a secure tenancy.

lighting_up_the_chalice

At the risk of sounding harsh... welcome to the real world. People have to make choices when their circumstances change. For many, that has included a drop in income and the inevitably difficult decision on where to make personal budgeting cuts. Housing costs are, inevitably, one avenue where potential savings can be made.

For the rest of the housing market, size and cost are closely linked. Why, with all the other advantages already available, should social housing be any different for those claiming HB?

barnaby-bear

mazza111 wrote: »

But it's still not taking into account of the lack of 1 bedroom properties. As I've said, there are 7 in this town for renting at the moment. Now if you compare that 7 to the amount of single people who may be in 2 bedroom properties at the moment.... Would be quite a struggle to find a 1 bedroom property if you see what I mean, so those who have no option are forced into paying the extra.

But surely this policy will encourage those with spare rooms to get a lodger and if there's such a 1-bed shortage that's another plus to policy and another route to extra rental accommodation in the social sector. I certainly couldn't afford a 1-bed flat for the whole of my 30s so it was lodging on short term notice or shared houses... it's pretty normal.

Nickynoo1

ijwia wrote: »

and as i am in receipt of housing benefit and was voluntary given a flat with 2 bedrooms from the local authority that should mean that i have done nothing wrong

so why am i getting punished for something when i did nothing wrong ?

Because the government decided to change the rules public and believes the best way to reduce the public deficit is to cut spending on welfare. If you think it is unfair you need to use your vote.......

Good luck