This so called Bedroom Tax

lighting_up_the_chalice

clemmatis wrote: »

I know the LHA restrictions are for private rents (and that the bedroom tax does not apply). The official advice sites, though, do not say that. I tried to find out how likely it.was that a young single person with no dependent children would be given social housing of any kind. I found statement after statement -- from official sources -- that they were the least likely to be given it.

I finally found some more precise information and data (from Jamuary 2012).

1. The government intends removing HB entitlement from those aged 16-24

2. 7% of social housing tenants are aged 16-24

3. Nearly 40% of the 7% receive no HB

4. Of the remainder, 19% are economically active.

5. The majority of the 7% are not single.

Have you any data?

The likelyhood of a young, single person being allocated social housing is, as with any other group, dependent on a number of factors. Chief among those factors is the issue of availability.

The stated intention to remove HB for 16-24 year olds has, for now at least, been dropped.

In almost all LA areas, anyone over the age of 16 can apply for social housing. If you can apply, it follows that you can be allocated.

Under 18s fall within the defined "priority" groups under the homeless legislation. This extends to 25 if you are a "relevant child" (ie some care leavers, leaving foster care etc).

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

i would assume that the majority at the lower end of the age range are either care leavers or estranged from parents or ar single parents.
i personally dont have an issue with removing HB entotlement to the age group 16-24,except under exceptional circumstances ( care leavers/estrangement)
i am 50, so not ancient, but even when i was that age. most adult children stayed at home with parents until they married or earnt enough to rent/buy independantly

The "exceptions" you highlight are far from exceptional. In 2012, almost 1/3 of all homeless accepts were as a result of exclusion by parent/friends etc. ie estrangement.

"Get down the council and tell em I've kicked you out, then they will have to give you a house" is still alive and kicking. For now. And, as exclusion was introduced in the 1996 act, we are now seeing 2nd generation excludees. "I got my first house when I was kicked out, and now my kids will get their first house when I kick em out".... Family traditions, huh? Brings a lump to the throat..... Bile in my case!

nannytone_2

so as usual the people that 'play' the system get everything and the genuine people have to pay the price.
in 2002 my son couldnt even get accepted onto the council waiting list as he and his wife both worked,
yet the families of seriel claimants are handled with kids gloves

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

people in general dont seem to be interested unless they are directly affected.
its the same with the benefit cap. a lot of people seem to thin that is 26k cash in their hand. they dont realise that it has to cover housing and council tax too. i am amazed by the ignorance of people ablout how badly some people are being hit,

how many times have you seen references on here to the 'massive ammounts of free money' that ALL disabled people receive?
they seem so coberned about their own positions ( rightly so) that they want someone to point the finger at, to blame for the way the country is. and in general it seems to be beiefit claimants that are the object of their wrath.... regardless of why they need to claim benefit

I'm not so sure it's just the bashers to blame. How many threads on here did we read when the council tax bills went out saying "I don't pay council tax!", how many posts from those effected by the bedroom tax have we seen saying "Well, I won't pay it, then they will make me homeless and have to give me another house", or trying to find every excuse for their spare room possible and, my all time favourite.... "I don't pay the rent, the council does".

If you want to change non claimants attitudes to benefits, you need to change benefit claimants attitudes to benefits first.

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

its the same with the benefit cap. a lot of people seem to thin that is 26k cash in their hand. they dont realise that it has to cover housing and council tax too. i am amazed by the ignorance of people ablout how badly some people are being hit,

And many benefit claimants don't count the money that they receive as rent and CT as part of their income (we've had several posters on here who've spoken of their home as "rent free") and virtually nobody ever works out what wage they'd have to earn to receive the same benefits and forgets that what they receive is net income.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

so as usual the people that 'play' the system and the genuine people have to pay the price.
in 2002 my son couldnt even get accepted onto the council waiting list as he and his wife both worked,
yet the families of seriel claimants are handled with kids gloves

Curiously, the notion of giving extra priority to those who work but receive a low income is currently being discussed. Employment should never be a bar to social housing.

nannytone_2

i lived in east london, and due to the problems in yugoslavia, we had a massive influx of asylum seekers, and the result was the list being closed to anyone that had a place to live ( with me) and worked,
my daughter in law went to night school and has since qualified as an accountant and is on an extrememly good income, but at the time it was frustrating because they didnt earn enough for a mortgage when the price of a 2 bed flat was 180k

clemmatis

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The likelyhood of a young, single person being allocated social housing is, as with any other group, dependent on a number of factors. Chief among those factors is the issue of availability.

The stated intention to remove HB for 16-24 year olds has, for now at least, been dropped.

In almost all LA areas, anyone over the age of 16 can apply for social housing. If you can apply, it follows that you can be allocated.

Under 18s fall within the defined "priority" groups under the homeless legislation. This extends to 25 if you are a "relevant child" (ie some care leavers, leaving foster care etc).

Actually I meant, did you have any data that contradicted mine and/or suggested single people under 24 with no dependent children were over-occupying social housing to any significant extent. Obviously anyone who can apply for social housing can be allocated it. But have you any comments on the data I presented?

Marches

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Curiously, the notion of giving extra priority to those who work but receive a low income is currently being discussed. Employment should never be a bar to social housing.

Yes, of course this will be reversed whenever Labour next come to power though.
There is very little help to working people unless you count income support, but still far less than for people on job seekers.

Lou76

Dunroamin wrote: »

And many benefit claimants don't count the money that they receive as rent and CT as part of their income (we've had several posters on here who've spoken of their home as "rent free") and virtually nobody ever works out what wage they'd have to earn to receive the same benefits and forgets that what they receive is net income.

Yeah, my all time favourite, when telling someone on benefits how much they actually get above their £71 JSA/ESA - Housing benefit/Council Tax etc is; "yeah, but I don't get that money to spend".

And what, do they think I get all my wages to spend on myself? Who do they think pays the rent/mortgage council tax etc for the people not claiming?

Sorry, that's a bugbear of mine, and was a bugbear even when I had to claim benefits [and was told how I had free housing - ehh, mortgages don't work that way] - so I'm not a basher.