What is a bedroom ? and is it a tax ?

Richie-from-the-Boro

There is no mobility social or otherwise in the social housing sector, its not a product of individuals whether disabled or otherwise needlessly under- occupying larger homes, but rather the impediment created by a national shortage of affordable homes in general and a national shortage of affordable social housing in particular and specifically in one and two bedroom properties. The DWP itself has recognised the lack of smaller properties available. In its impact assessment it notes that there is a mismatch between household size and the availability of suitable homes in the social sector for under-occupying claimants to downsize into. The National Audit Office reached the same conclusions, in its report on the impact of housing benefit changes, it noted that there was a mismatch between need [of smaller homes in social sector to downsize to] and availability.

The DWP’s Equality Impact Assessment shows that 66% of claimants who will be affected by the Bedroom Tax are disabled (as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act). Although recipients of Disability Living Allowance are exempt from the overall benefit cap, the DWP has chosen not to exempt them from the Bedroom Tax.

Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) are a joke, just not a funny one, helping people with disabilities remain in properties adapted for their needs is the epextaular end of the spctrum, however, as these payments are often limited to just a few months, it is not a viable longterm solution as it fails to give people with disabilities the assurance that their housing needs are secure. Also, DHPs are made from a budgetlimited discretionary fund. The Payment budget will be under significant pressure following major cuts to Local Housing Allowance for private sector tenants, and Local Authorities may choose to prioritise those at risk of homelessness, rather than social tenants with disabilities.

Single parents living apart from their children will be penalised for having a spare room for their child to stay in. The 1989 Children’s Act includes the principle that ‘the welfare of the child is paramount’ which Gingerbread, the charity for single parents, defines as encouraging greater involvement of nonresident parents in their children’s lives. This involvement will be much harder if parents are forced to move to smaller properties without a room for their child to stay. As there is no distinction between larger and smaller bedrooms for housing benefit purposes, two children of the same sex may be expected to share a small bedroom suitable only for single occupancy – or the family will stand to lose a proportion of their housing benefit. This has the potential to impact on their educational attainment and their physical and mental health.

Richie-from-the-Boro Case Study

A couple living with two children younger than ten live in a three bedroom social Housing Association home at № 42 Firkinshaw Street Middlesbrough receiving £3 per week in housing benefit. In moving to a two bedroom private sector rented home at № 155 Firkinshaw Stree Middlesbrough, they will be entitled to the Local Housing Allowance of £103.85 for a two bedroom private home, costing an extra £1604.20 in benefits. By the way, in the lies lies and stats stakes - 10% of social housing is underoccupied according to the governments own official figures - its 16% in private rented housing and a whopping 48% in owned properties

Now then. If all governments in the last several decades have (1) built relatively zero social housing [they hide the building rate by calling them 'affordable homes'] and (2) there are no smaller homes available in the social housing sector and not only does it not save money, but it (3) costs considerably more money. Those forced from their homes (4) must go to the only homes available which are in the private sector (5) therefore the current government are transferring the Housing Benefit payments + increases to their friends the private sector landlords.

Sorted then, the GOV don't need to build new 1 bedder homes, they chuck all the money at their private sector for profit mates, they will split all tiny two bed homes into two single one bad flats picking up treble the profit, and everyone's happy except :

- the old
- the ill
- the disabled
- carers who live with the people they care for or for people unable to share rooms because of illness or disability
- disabled people who rely on local family and support networks
- disabled children who need care during the night and cannot share with a sibling
- War widows
- Families with foster children who, for benefit purposes, does not count as part of the household
- homes for foster carers who are deemed to be over-occupying because they keep a spare room for emergency placements
- separated parents who share the care of their children and who may have been allocated an extra bedroom to reflect this
- homes for families who have a son or daughter in the armed forces, kids are at university will be exempt, but dying for your country isn't

d123

Bigmoney2 wrote: »

Remember this is not a tax, it is a reduction in housing benefit for those living in social housing (council house).

You may not wish to use the term " bedroom tax" but it is the common name for it.

In fact, I received a letter from my MP yesterday after asking him for some clarifications, and on official House of Commons letterhead he referred to it as the "bedroom tax" on a number of occasions.

If its good enough for Parliament....

Richie-from-the-Boro

New parliamantary briefing note issued today on under-occupation of social housing ahead of Opposition Day debate later today. The full report is here

Landlord reclassifies properties here

Taffs make a late attempt in Parliament to derail bedroom tax here

MP Helen Goodman’s video diary ‘Life after #bedroomtax’, of her living on £18 a week here

Shelter Scotland petition asking Scottish Ministers to act to protect tenants from the bedroom tax here

Richie-from-the-Boro

Liberty are arguing article 8 / and / or / 14

rogerblack

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- so the simple act of downsizing single people from 2 bed social to 1 bed private would increase HB by £169 Mi££ion per annum
- in short the £169Mi££ion per annum increased HB cost is a megga underestimate of how much MORE the bedroom tax will cost the public purse

Rehousing 1 bed social to private costs (agreeing for the moment) that.
However, rehousing those currently claiming 2 bed private into 2 bed social (or the ripple effect as people 'rightsize' meaning people moving from freed up >1 bed private to social) will save some money.

Assuming for the moment that the LHA stock remains full.

Richie-from-the-Boro

rogerblack wrote: »

Rehousing 1 bed social to private costs (agreeing for the moment) that.
However, rehousing those currently claiming 2 bed private into 2 bed social (or the ripple effect as people 'rightsize' meaning people moving from freed up >1 bed private to social) will save some money.

Assuming for the moment that the LHA stock remains full.

English rate

If I understand you to mean social stock to private stock as 'ripple' .. .. that ripple is never going to happen is it. If it existed in the first place the 1/4 of a million overcrowded families in social housing would have loaded up their social wheelbarrows with all their worldly and moved into private stock years ago. Even if you were correct in your assumptions it would cost another bi££ion a year in additional housing benefit to move a quarter million family units from 2 bed social to 3 bed private wouldn't it ?

If you look at the VOA the DWP's own release figs for April this year put a 2 bedder social at £80+pw - a 3 bedder private would require an extra £78+pw in housing benefit from the public purse wouldn't it ? But then we know and the government know its just never going to happen - and was never intended to happen.

What will happen, and was always intended to happen is that the private sector landlord friends of the GOV get the few that do move and pocket the extra £78+ quid a week, but the bar far massive majority don't move because there is no 'property matching' either social to social or social to private for both under-occupied and overcrowded social tenants. There is nowhere to move to, they will be 'fined' this extra tax which will largely come from their [ already means tested housing benefit payment ]. The poor social tenant pays again.

the_devil_made_me_do_it

Thought people may be interested in this..

http://www.carersuk.org/media/k2/attachments/UK1023_Changes_to_help_with_rent___the_Bedroom_Tax.pdf

Brassedoff

Hmmm, my local authority in our free paper estimates they will be able to solve most of their problems when people decide to move as they realise they don't need that "junk" room. They have roughly the same amount looking to move up as that who could move down. So, they just need someone to get their head down and work out the logistics.

If local authorities will not pay for those of us with mortgages to 100% of the interest because of the rules, why should those in rented accommodation be able to have that spare bedroom they don't use paid for?


I already hear the calls from those who have the occasional overnightears, or grand kids, that they need the extra room, but why should that be funded? Fund it yourself. Don't be tempted to take in a lodger, if you do, they should give you notice.

I have to pay my mortgage, with two children aged 18 & 21, most of the time we have three bedrooms spare, but that's our choice, I ask no one to fund this for me!

It's not a tax, its commonsence. Too many wish to remain in their three or four bedroom house when they can make do with a one bedroom place. If they disagree, get a job and pay band E like me!

nannytone_2

Brassedoff wrote: »

Hmmm, my local authority in our free paper estimates they will be able to solve most of their problems when people decide to move as they realise they don't need that "junk" room. They have roughly the same amount looking to move up as that who could move down. So, they just need someone to get their head down and work out the logistics.

If local authorities will not pay for those of us with mortgages to 100% of the interest because of the rules, why should those in rented accommodation be able to have that spare bedroom they don't use paid for?


I already hear the calls from those who have the occasional overnightears, or grand kids, that they need the extra room, but why should that be funded? Fund it yourself. Don't be tempted to take in a lodger, if you do, they should give you notice.

I have to pay my mortgage, with two children aged 18 & 21, most of the time we have three bedrooms spare, but that's our choice, I ask no one to fund this for me!

It's not a tax, its commonsence. Too many wish to remain in their three or four bedroom house when they can make do with a one bedroom place. If they disagree, get a job and pay band E like me!

as long as downsizing is appropriate ( forget the people that need the spare room) then in you area everything sounds hunly dory.
but i live in an area where there are NO 1 bedroomed properties, and there are many other areas that are the same.
where do you suggest that we go?

Brassedoff

nannytone wrote: »

as long as downsizing is appropriate ( forget the people that need the spare room) then in you area everything sounds hunly dory.
but i live in an area where there are NO 1 bedroomed properties, and there are many other areas that are the same.
where do you suggest that we go?

I assume the appropriateness comes from your ability to pay for the property? Far too many people in their late 40's, 50's and 60's hang on to public stock that belongs to the tax payers without a thought for the young couple who have a bedsit and two children, no garden for them to play. After all, if you live in social or council houses, they don't belong to the tennent. If they want to buy one, fight through the pain and pay a mortgage!

How do people need "that spare room" what for, junk? Waste? Boxes of bits? If not a 1 bedroom, what is wrong with a bedsit? If you are not happy, rent privately.

I would like a long drive with gates, yet have to look across the drive to my neighbours. It's all about being able to afford what you can. I can stretch to a four bedroomed house and have a room spare all the time. But it's not the councils house.