Welfare Reform

Growurown

Depth_Charge wrote: »

Hi

Interesting recent articles from Inside Housing & The Guardian on delays to universal credit / Major Project Authorities (MPA) annual assessment.

Arguably a touch controversial subject with plenty of mileage still left in it

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/regulation/delays-to-universal-credit-lead-watchdog-to-rate-it-as-a-new-project/7003876.article

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/23/universal-credit-reset-iain-duncan-smith

My opinions

DC

I see some press accusing IDS of trying to bury this news by releasing it on the day when the election results are the major topic, although that's beside the point really. I think the concept of UC is a good one. It's just such a shame that it is turning out to be a disaster, because work should pay and under the current system of benefits it doesn't always.

There was a report about 'White Dee' from the Benefits St. programme saying that if she earned £90 a week she would get a reduction of £70 in her benefits. She would be £20 a week better off but then factor in possible travel costs to and from work, one can see that it really isn't paying her to work for that £90. The system needs to change.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2633384/The-REAL-scandal-White-Dee-Its-not-just-brazen-milking-benefits-makes-rational-choice-working.html

Depth_Charge

Growurown wrote: »

I see some press accusing IDS of trying to bury this news by releasing it on the day when the election results are the major topic, although that's beside the point really. I think the concept of UC is a good one. It's just such a shame that it is turning out to be a disaster, because work should pay and under the current system of benefits it doesn't always.

There was a report about 'White Dee' from the Benefits St. programme saying that if she earned £90 a week she would get a reduction of £70 in her benefits. She would be £20 a week better off but then factor in possible travel costs to and from work, one can see that it really isn't paying her to work for that £90. The system needs to change.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2633384/The-REAL-scandal-White-Dee-Its-not-just-brazen-milking-benefits-makes-rational-choice-working.html

Hi

Yes, fair points in there as always

It was never going to be a smooth changeover as many of us predicted.

The IDS angle along with some of the other silly claims at the outset of all this, well what can you say really, apart from they all seem to have gone to ground (like they usually do)

A very long road ahead

My take

DC

Depth_Charge

Hi

Latest BBC Article on Universal Credit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27934566

DC

Depth_Charge

Hi

No surprises here on the bedroom tax, one of the worst thought out policies of all time as most who are affected and those at the front line who have to deal with the misery & fall out will likely agree.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/impact-bedroom-tax-revealed-59-3866809

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329948/rr882-evaluation-of-removal-of-the-spare-room-subsidy.pdf

My take

DC

seven-day-weekend

Depth_Charge wrote: »

Hi

No surprises here on the bedroom tax, one of the worst thought out policies of all time as most who are affected and those at the front line who have to deal with the misery & fall out will likely agree.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/impact-bedroom-tax-revealed-59-3866809

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329948/rr882-evaluation-of-removal-of-the-spare-room-subsidy.pdf

My take

DC

The above report says very few have taken in lodgers. If this is because they have decided to pay the extra rent themselves, all well and good. If they have got into arrears through not paying it and STILL haven't taken a lodger, then they really only have themselves to blame.

I own my house outright, but over the years when we were paying the mortgage, we took lodgers if we fell on lean times. Don't see why it should be any different for a social tenant.

hohum

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

The above report says very few have taken in lodgers. If this is because they have decided to pay the extra rent themselves, all well and good. If they have got into arrears through not paying it and STILL haven't taken a lodger, then they really only have themselves to blame.

I own my house outright, but over the years when we were paying the mortgage, we took lodgers if we fell on lean times. Don't see why it should be any different for a social tenant.

because:

not all social housing tenancies allow tenants to take in lodgers

private letting tenancies often don't allow people to take on lodgers and you need permission from a landlord to have one. Note a large number of people receiving housing benefit are not in social housing. Thus, public money is subsidising private property owner. (But setting capped rental rates would be stifling it, apparently).

the income from a lodger would affect the amount of housing benefit a tenant receives, potentially leaving them in the same situation ie with a shortfall on the amount of benefit they receive in order to meet the rent they have to pay

Although for some people this may work well, I think you need to recognise there is a difference for many in being a tenant and being a property owner, and often the ability to accept lodgers is down to leases and the landlords rather than the tenants.

seven-day-weekend

If you read the report you quoted, it specifically mentions social tenants and that taking in lodgers is normally given permission and that much of a lodger's rent is disregarded. Also see

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/lodger-rules-to-ease-impact-of-bedroom-tax/6522846.article

The 'Bedroom Tax' (spare room subsidy) that you are talking about and as in the context of the article, does not affect private tenants.

Growurown

I know a lot of social housing tenants who are struggling to pay their bedroom tax. They don't want to take in lodgers because basically they don't want to share their home with a stranger. I can't say I blame them, I wouldn't want to share my home with a stranger either. You can never be sure of what you are getting. They could be a nightmare to live with, they could be violent, they could be anything.

The other option of course is to move house but in my area the social housing providers have said they simply don't have enough smaller properties. It is very difficult for people to move into a smaller privately rented home too if they have no financial resources to pay a deposit, a months rent in advance, fees and the cost of removal. What I have seen is effectively people trapped in their own homes, no social housing option and no opportunity to move into a privately rented property.

Depth_Charge

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

The above report says very few have taken in lodgers. If this is because they have decided to pay the extra rent themselves, all well and good. If they have got into arrears through not paying it and STILL haven't taken a lodger, then they really only have themselves to blame.

I own my house outright, but over the years when we were paying the mortgage, we took lodgers if we fell on lean times. Don't see why it should be any different for a social tenant.

Hi

Interesting take on the situation:)

All views welcome

DC

Depth_Charge

Growurown wrote: »

I know a lot of social housing tenants who are struggling to pay their bedroom tax. They don't want to take in lodgers because basically they don't want to share their home with a stranger. I can't say I blame them, I wouldn't want to share my home with a stranger either. You can never be sure of what you are getting. They could be a nightmare to live with, they could be violent, they could be anything.

The other option of course is to move house but in my area the social housing providers have said they simply don't have enough smaller properties. It is very difficult for people to move into a smaller privately rented home too if they have no financial resources to pay a deposit, a months rent in advance, fees and the cost of removal. What I have seen is effectively people trapped in their own homes, no social housing option and no opportunity to move into a privately rented property.

Hi

Yes, I more or less agree with all this, well put

If there is nowhere to downsize to, which can often be the case, it gets a little tricky.

There are only so many lodgers on the waiting list anyway I would think:)

Some are really trapped in housing & debt worry with no light at the end of the tunnel.

The bedroom tax is a disgrace in my opinion, and solves nothing overall

The stats are there to see (when they sneak them out anyway:)

My take

DC