This so called Bedroom Tax

Mojisola

jackieblack wrote: »

The problems were not caused by people buying their council homes, but by the councils not re-investing the money from the sale of council homes in building new public housing stock.

The councils weren't allowed to spend the money on building new homes.

jackieblack

Mojisola wrote: »

The councils weren't allowed to spend the money on building new homes.

And that is what led to the reduction in housing stock.

milly2k

Nice to see so many friendly people on here i must say...
I get what you are saying OP its just unfortunate that some others on here are a bit too small minded to see it.
Perhaps because they have a mortgage they think they are better. pride comes before a fall.
You sound like someone who has worked and paid into this country so what you live in council property. It is still your home and has been for 25 years....

nottslass_2

The problem is that there are no (as in our LA Case) no 1 bedroom houses or flats - how on earth are people meant to down size when there's no where to down size to ?

What happens when all the 2 bed properties have been taken and their simply isn't anywhere for people needing to downsize from a 3 bed and a private landlord won't take you as a tenant ?
Remember its quite possible to be working but have to claim HB due to low income



My oldest son is trying to find a private rental as his landlord is selling but because he is receipt of housing benefit (after being made redundant) its proving impossible to find a landlord that will accept him,this is despite me being will to stand as guarantor.

ILW

atlantis187 wrote: »

This government is all about the rich people
The sooner people realise that the better.

The only thing the poor get from them is cuts, cuts and more cuts

Think it was mainly "poor" people who got to buy council houses at massive discounts.

Think a lot (not all) of the moaning poor need to look at why they are poor.

tamiami

I totally understand where you are coming from OP. Back in the 70's the houses were built and rented out for life, no one said you would ever have to move out. A lot of my husbands family have lived and died in their council houses. And yes they paid their own rent and bills. You paid the rent just like anyone else. If you were claiming benefits then yes I would say move you to a smaller house, but you are not and I think you should be entitled to stay there for the rest of your life.

Mojisola

milly2k wrote: »

I get what you are saying OP its just unfortunate that some others on here are a bit too small minded to see it.

Perhaps because they have a mortgage they think they are better. pride comes before a fall.

You sound like someone who has worked and paid into this country so what you live in council property. It is still your home and has been for 25 years....

It is really so strange that people living in privately rented or mortgaged houses don't expect someone living in a lower rent council house to be treated better than they are?

Council housing rents should be means tested - if people living in council houses are earning good wages, they should be paying commercial rents. They should also be on a fixed term tenancy - if their needs change, they can then be rehoused in bigger or smaller properties.

ILW

tamiami wrote: »

I totally understand where you are coming from OP. Back in the 70's the houses were built and rented out for life, no one said you would ever have to move out. A lot of my husbands family have lived and died in their council houses. And yes they paid their own rent and bills. You paid the rent just like anyone else. If you were claiming benefits then yes I would say move you to a smaller house, but you are not and I think you should be entitled to stay there for the rest of your life.

They cannot move you unless you are claiming benefits. In fact as long as you are paying the rent they cannot move you at all. IT IS NOT A TAX.

DCodd

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

In the totally private world of renting, your landlord can sell the property and kick you out, or put up the rent, decide s/he doesn't like you, and so on. It would be madness to consider your privately-rented accommodation as your "forever home" except in the most exceptional and lucky circumstances. Landlords can die and their beneficiaries decide to live in the house, or sell.

So someone in Council accommodation has never had to worry about that. In my mind, they have been very, very lucky. In addition, people who are single (like my partner who lives and works in London) have to share their privately-rented accommodation with strangers - there are 5 living in his house, in 4 bedrooms. He earns about £26,000 a month, not a high-earner for London.

Why should his - and others', of course - tax go to subsidising people in better accommodation than his. Is that fair?

So that's the world of private renting. Add into that, the fact that there are families who are suffering in insufficiently large accommodation while others have spare rooms. Is this fair?

I think that the era of "entitlement" to a taxpayer-subsidised home for life is unfair to those who don't get it. Yes, get the subsidy, but only for the accommodation you require - or pay the difference.

To those saying that there are no one-bedroomed properties, I refer to my partner's situation above (5 people in a 4-bed house with shared bathroom and communal kitchen and living spaces).

I understand that this is difficult for people, and I'm sympathetic: the choices are difficult (move; suck-up the reduction; or take-in a lodger), but I think this subsidy reduction (which has many exclusions), brings the luxury of having your housing subsidised a little more in line with the world of most taxpayers.

Perhaps, that's why people are not 'getting' your post? Especially, since it doesn't apply to you anyway.

The problem here is that people want a race to the bottom again. There is disparity between the private rented sector and the social housing sector but this ia mainly down to the Private landlord, short rents and the desire for many to move onwards and upwards from rented to ownership or better rented accomodation.

Surely the answer is for rental contracts in the private sector to reflect more closely the social housing sector with longer term contracts? Would this not reduce rents and increase security for tenants?

19lottie82

claire2k wrote: »

If the council see fit to house you in a property that is too big then how can they say at a future date it is too big. They put you there in the first place

Because there were enough properties to allocate you one with an extra bedroom in the first place, you were very lucky. As you stated, that was 25 years ago, things have changed since then. We are now in the middle of a "housing crisis"

Your post is very narrow minded, and peopel may not agree with me here, but I'd also say, selfish. What about the growing number of young families, who need a home?

I'm sure you would say different if all the 3+ bedroom houses were being used by single or coupled OAPS, who's kids had all moved out years ago, and because of this, whole families were forced into shelters, or 1 bed flats.

I agree with the bedroom "tax" to some extent, I think if someone is in an "under occupied" property and they are offered a smaller one, and refuse it, then of course they should have their benefits cut, but it's not really fair cutting peoples benefits when they have nowhere smaller to go.