This so called Bedroom Tax

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Freeing up under occupied secure Social Housing for the benefit of your "restless rootless underclass" is hardly making life worse for those at the bottom. It's giving them a better opportunity for the security you rightly praise.

and instead creating a different 'rootless. restless' group. many with disabilities.
people are happy to see one disadvantaged group suffer to help another disadvantaged group.
i really dont understand the mentality.
fairness now seems to be about bringing people DOWN to the same level.
smacks of 'keeping us in our place'

lighting_up_the_chalice

Bryando wrote: »

Had nothing from the local council on the reduction, I have an extra room.


I intend to pay, but will pay what we can afford.

What will be interesting is when Universal Credit comes into play and the junkies etc have their rent money sitting. Do you really think they will pay the rent or score?

The same safeguards will be in place as those used for LHA and tenants vulnerable to homelessness. It works for them.

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The same safeguards will be in place as those used for LHA and tenants vulnerable to homelessness. It works for them.

what safeguards? are you talking about DHP?

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

and instead creating a different 'rootless. restless' group. many with disabilities.
people are happy to see one disadvantaged group suffer to help another disadvantaged group.
i really dont understand the mentality.
fairness now seems to be about bringing people DOWN to the same level.
smacks of 'keeping us in our place'

You need to look at the bigger picture. Better use of Social Housing may benefit more than just those fortunate enough to secure Social Housing as a result of these changes.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

what safeguards? are you talking about DHP?

And having the rent paid direct to the landlord under certain circumstances.

nannytone_2

i dont disagree at all.
but because of the lack of 1 bed properties, people will be forced into the insecure private market.
without sufficient amounts af the right sized properties, all it will do ismake a different set of people transient
and the lack of 1 bed property in the private sector will mean that people that are only entitled i 1 bed LHA cannot move because it will cost even more to be in a 2 bed private let.
there is no problem with people living in the size of property that they need, but forcing them to pay because there is no choice, itsnt fair

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

i dont disagree at all.
but because of the lack of 1 bed properties, people will be forced into the insecure private market.
without sufficient amounts af the right sized properties, all it will do ismake a different set of people transient
and the lack of 1 bed property in the private sector will mean that people that are only entitled i 1 bed LHA cannot move because it will cost even more to be in a 2 bed private let.
there is no problem with people living in the size of property that they need, but forcing them to pay because there is no choice, itsnt fair

I hear SH tenants using the "no 1 beds available" all the time, but that simply isn't always the case. Even YOU were able to identify two single bed units in your area.

Of course, the other solution is to take in a lodger, thus solving 2 peoples housing problems and even providing an income boost into the bargain! Win/win, I'd say.

But, of course, everyone will vomit out the usual excuses as to why they shouldn't be the ones offering a solution.

nannytone_2

they were pribate leys with rents £25 and £30 respectively above the LHA rate.
there are NO 2 bed SH places apart from 2 supported housing for young people places.

i am currently looking into the possibility oif getting a lodger... but because of my disability, i obvously need to be extremely careful who i let in my home.
i would after all. have to let them use my personal things and share my bathroom.
it is also hampered by the fact that this is an area of high unemployment and readily available housing, both in the social and private sectors.
people on the whole seem to prefer house sharing with friends, for obvious reasons

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

they were pribate leys with rents £25 and £30 respectively above the LHA rate.
there are NO 2 bed SH places apart from 2 supported housing for young people places.

i am currently looking into the possibility oif getting a lodger... but because of my disability, i obvously need to be extremely careful who i let in my home.
i would after all. have to let them use my personal things and share my bathroom.
it is also hampered by the fact that this is an area of high unemployment and readily available housing, both in the social and private sectors.
people on the whole seem to prefer house sharing with friends, for obvious reasons

I accept that taking in a lodger isn't THE solution, and isn't always appropriate. However, it is ONE solution and the knock-on effect may also help those for whom it is inappropriate by reducing demand for 1 bed units in favour of 2 beds.

We need to get away from the notion that when a young person leaves the family home, they are entitled to self contained accommodation. The fact is that, in many cases, this is the most inappropriate housing option and young people may have to do what so many of us did when we left home and share, both housing AND the bills.

Another factor which will help many to resolve their housing issues is the changes to CTB, another reform that many don't agree with. Until now, single people could have their council flat, rent paid, council tax paid and, effectively, if they didn't live there, there was no additional cost. Now they are, at the very least, having to pay some of their Council Tax. Is it just coincidence that there has been a noticeable increase in posters here asking about their entitlement should they suddenly decide to live together?

Obviously, this is an area of the grey market impossible to quantify, but a significant number of single person SH units remain unoccupied in any real sense as their tenant lives elsewhere with, until now, no financial penalty (in fact, it was advantageous to be 2 singles rather than 1 couple). At last, that situation is changing. Even if that means that our unromantic friends move back to mums (on paper, at least), it will still free up some valuable public resource. Who could argue that as anything other than a positive move?

ditzyangeluk

Dunroamin wrote: »

As there's no guarantee that you'll be awarded DHP, you really should've paid the new rent (unless you've put the money aside just in case). If you haven't and you don't get it you're already in a difficult position with the new rent amount to pay on top.

Oh I have but it is annoying to be toild to pay nothing until sorted (as I was at first), then told different things and then for it to take so long. Its a debacle to say the least when it was so hurried thoguh in the first place