Some pensioners will be affected by the 'bedroom tax'

Tehya

I live in a two bedroomed house with my hubby, who I care for 24/7 even though I have several disabling conditions that are being made worse because of the physical side of caring. The house we are in is fully adapted for both our needs and the rent is currently £76 a week.

Both my local authority and my current landlord (HA) have only a tiny number of one bedroomed bungalows/flats of which we are not old enough for anyway (we were flatly refused one before they gave us our current home) so will need to move to a private home soon as we just can't absorb this charge as well as the CT we're going to be paying in April.

The current one bedroomed homes (with disabled access) and room for mobility equipment i.e wheelchair, commodes etc are well in excess of our current rent plus these places will need, if permission can be granted, to be fully adaptable with wetroom, rails and a wheelchair accessible kitchen.

It seems to me that this will end up costing a whole lot more than the government has figured on and I know at least twenty over couples from my carer's group who are in the exact same position. I don't have the answer but I do think ministers need to re-consider some areas of this change.

nannytone_2

never mind the cost and the upheaval...

at least you wont have a spare room that a family that CHOOSES to have a child could use.

wish it was as easy to choose to have a disability or not

seven-day-weekend

Morlock wrote: »

Should the government pay more for someone to live in another property just because it has one less room?

If necessary, because a family could be housed in the larger house. I don't see why a couple with a family can't have a two-bedroomed house. My friend brought up three children (two boys and a girl) in a two-bedroomed council house.

nannytone_2

a friend of mine raised 7 kids in a 3 bed house. 6 boys and 1 girl. she and her husband used the dining part of the living room as their bedroom

seven-day-weekend

nannytone wrote: »

a friend of mine raised 7 kids in a 3 bed house. 6 boys and 1 girl. she and her husband used the dining part of the living room as their bedroom

Yes, our friends who I mentioned above had a sofa bed in the living room. They didn't want to move because their house was in a nice area near a decent school. They felt that was more important than everyone having their own bedroom.

Morlock

nannytone wrote: »

wish it was as easy to choose to have a disability or not

67% of those affected by the bedroom tax are either disabled or have a disabled person living in the household.

nannytone_2

Morlock wrote: »

67% of those affected by the bedroom tax are either disabled or have a disabled person living in the household.

i'm not suprised.

disabled people hold onto security above all else, as they are never going to be in a position to better their situation.
no one disputes the fact that it is silly to allow people to live in properties bigger than they need, but when there is no where else for them to go, it is heartless to punish them

Morlock

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

If necessary, because a family could be housed in the larger house. I don't see why a couple with a family can't have a two-bedroomed house.

A large percentage of properties affected are deemed not suitable for families, which is why they were offered to single tenants.
A couple with a young family are only entitled to a two-bedroom house, if they are lucky enough to have been offered a three-bedroom property, it is because the demographic on the waiting list did not demand that three-bedroom property, and possibly still doesn't.

seven-day-weekend

Morlock wrote: »

A large percentage of properties affected are deemed not suitable for families, which is why they were offered to single tenants.
A couple with a young family are only entitled to a two-bedroom house, if they are lucky enough to have been offered a three-bedroom property, it is because the demographic on the waiting list did not demand that three-bedroom property, and possibly still doesn't.

Oh right, I thought someone said that two-bed properties were not offered to families any more Sorry for the mix-up.

There are some properties in my city that anyone on the housing register can apply for, regardless of need, because no-one wants them; these include three bedroom houses in no-go areas. I would be glad of one if the alternative was the streets, otherwise I would make do with what accommodation I had.

Morlock

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Oh right, I thought someone said that two-bed properties were not offered to families any more Sorry for the mix-up.

Yes they are, a couple with two sons, for example, will only ever be entitled to a two-bedroom property until the youngest child reaches 16.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

There are some properties in my city that anyone on the housing register can apply for, regardless of need, because no-one wants them; these include three bedroom houses in no-go areas. I would be glad of one if the alternative was the streets, otherwise I would make do with what accommodation I had.

Whereas previously those properties could have been let to couples or couples with one or two children, the consolation being an extra bedroom, they are now even less desirable as they also attract a reduction in housing benefit.