Bedroom Tax and kids living away??

haras_nosirrah

Witch_Hazel wrote: »

Google threw this up
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Bedroom-tax-force-Hull-couple-20-years/story-18190460-detail/story.html#axzz2LN0W14nz

But I suspect the paper got their facts incorrect, as many NRP who have their children at the weekends wouldn't be up in arms about the bedroom tax.
As I thought:

'Bedroom tax' will affect council and housing association tenants under retirement age.
The size of the home you can rent without being affected by this cut will be:

• one bedroom for a couple
• one bedroom for a person aged 16 or over
• one bedroom for two children aged under 16 of the same sex
• one bedroom for two children aged under 10 (boys and girls are expected to share a room)
• one extra bedroom if you or your partner needs an overnight carer to stay.

You won't be allowed to claim housing benefit for rooms above this limit that are used for:

• foster children
• couples who use separate bedrooms because of illness
• children visiting a divorced or separated parent
• disabled adults.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/housing_benefit_and_local_housing_allowance/housing_benefit_changes_2013

so the couple in that article are being forced to leave their 4 bedroom house despite having no children at home - about time. They should have left years ago before being forced.

Tottyshouse

Surely people realise this is just the tip of the iceberg though? In 20 years time people will look back and wish their rent was subsidised to the tune of 86%. We have an ageing population. Pensioners will always be the last to be affected by any cuts due to "grey power". No governemnt is ever going to tax big businesse into the ground and risk them withdrawing from the UK. The truly wealthy will always have very shrewd accountants. That leaves Working Joe Public to foot the bill. There simply isn't enough money. I work with an American, a German and a Hungarian. They are incredibly critical of our welfare state when it comes to the able bodied. All of their home countries have widely differing systems - but they all share one thing - help is time limited and far less generous to those who don't contribute. Maybe if your wife had thought 10 years ago she would only get a small amount of help towards the rent for a short period of time she may have looked harder in the interim for a smaller cheaper property. It may be cold comfort but surely 86% rent free if you choose to stay in social housing with an extra bedroom is not such a bad thing. No one ever guaranteed me at birth that all of my housing costs would be covered for life.

306chris

lazer wrote: »

3) The additional room is a box room (especially in 3 bed houses as the 3rd is often tiny) - or at least the reduction in benefits should not be so high in this case.
4) You are pregnant or other circumstances which mean you will need the house of your current size in the very near future (ie: within 2 years).

Little background about me. I have worked since I was 18 and now 32 and lost my job last October. Have 2 children 1 boy (3) and one girl (5). We moved into a 3 bed SH where the 3rd room is tiny, all the houses in our row are the same size and plan some have two beds and others three.

I am currently trying to find work and will take almost anything (anybody have a job going!!) So we are in receipt of benefits and have been preparing for the changes and reductions.

I have already posted that at the present moment the easiest thing we could do finacially is to have another child thus more Child benefiit, Child Tax credit and no reduction in Housing Benefit. Sadly I know people in our similar situation who are planning to do this already and its sad that children will be raised for the extra few quid.

I have already enquired about downsizing and have been told that 800 homes just with our housing trust will be affected and there aren't the homes available with in the HT.

I can't get into private renting due to silly mistakes in the past. I eneded up in a lot of personal debt £30k plus which I have been paying off and will be paying off for the next 254 years which means that no private land lord will look at me without 6 months rent as a deposit. We found this out when we first tried to get a house together.

TBH even if we could move I wouldn't want to anyway. The house we are in is in a good area, close to the school and quite frankly I've bloody well looked after it inside and out and spent a time and money making it a nice home for my partner adn children to grow up in.

I can see why they are introducing a reduction in HB, but I think that it has been poorly designed from the outset. It's not only the benefit class as some on here seem to see me but hard working people will be affected by this.
I had the displeasure of working in a supermarket full time, crap work, long hours and muppets for managers but it paid the bills, but working full time at NMW it wasnt covering the bills so we were claiming some HB and we would still have seen a loss of about £6 a week £24 a month not a lot but it would have been a bill paid. Now that I have less coming in JSA of approx £111 I am going to loose about £15 a week.
Sacrifices have been made already - The car has gone - Sky Sports has gone - Partner has given up smoking - Holiday plans gone - Booze has gone - Just waiting for mobile contract to end and that will be gone as well.

Just to rub salt into the wounds three letters turned up today. The letter from HT regarding benefit reduction, a letter to say that rent is going up 5% and a letter from the council saying that we will have to pay 25% of CT (good job I am in credit with them having paid up ealry before I lost my job)

nannytone_2

if this scheme os, as claimed, a way to free up family sized properties, then a levy should be stet agains all tenants that over occupy and not just those claiming benefit.
those on benefit lose 14$m so if its really fair, then the rents of the people not claiming should rise by 14% to persuade them to downsize.

SingleSue

Lou76 wrote: »

Ahhh, but when are you telling your Dad he's known on MSE (albeit, by me, but he needn't know the finer details ) as "A Boy Named Sue?"

Now I'm imagine Single Sue's Dad to look like Johnny Cash, and I'm starting to fancy him. :eek:

When he was younger, he was always being mistaken for a very young Cliff Richard...shame Cliff kept his hair but my dad didn't :rotfl:

I think I will tell him tomorrow, he will like the laugh, he was always game for a bit of joking about, something that several strokes has not taken from him (thank goodness)

SingleSue

evenasus wrote: »

I was just pointing out your statement is incorrect.

I know it doesn't apply solely to social housing - but it certainly includes them.

Actually, social housing tenants do have to pay rent if they work...I know we did, it is only those who are on benefits and receive full housing benefit who do not (themselves) pay rent.

SingleSue

evenasus wrote: »

So if a family is living in a council house, having all their rent and council tax paid for by the council - they are not getting it free?

Can you please explain why it isn't free to them?

Because they may be working and thus, not receiving any housing or council tax benefit.

MissMoneypenny

It might be better if we just had only had 1 and 2 bedroom properties for social housing. The 1 beds for those without children or with one child under age 1. The 2 beds for those with children over age 1, with boys in one bedroom, girls in the other and the parent or parents, sleeping in a downstairs room.

It would be easier to change tenants around then and parents would have to take responsibilty for the number of children they have. Although I suspect if they didn't get a bigger house and more money for every child they have, they won't have so many.

pmlindyloo

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

It might be better if we just had only had 1 and 2 bedroom properties for social housing. The 1 beds for those without children or with one child under age 1. The 2 beds for those with children over age 1, with boys in one bedroom, girls in the other and the parent or parents, sleeping in a downstairs room.

It would be easier to change tenants around then and parents would have to take responsibilty for the number of children they have. Although I suspect if they didn't get a bigger house and more money for every child they have, they won't have so many.

OMG ! You have just guaranteed that this thread will run and run and run.........

CKhalvashi

starrystarry wrote: »

You lost my sympathy when you started ranting about immigrants anyway.

I'm in the same boat here, even though to an extent, I feel that the Gov hasn't thought this through as well as they could have done.

As a number of people on these boards know, I'm from an immigrant family, and I'm also a large employer in the UK. It wasn't my choice to come, and putting immigrants into one category is severely unfair.

With the Romanians and Bulgarians (that you specifically mentioned, I'm neither), a lot of those that cause problems are the gypsies. Romania/Bulgaria don't want them.

Please think before generalising!

CK