This so called Bedroom Tax

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

There are certainly more than a handful, but I didn't say anything about a single person being allocated it. I just said that HB would cover their full rent.

you night just as well say hb would be paid to a teenager for a 50 bedroom country mansion ,,, the scenario is just as likely

nannytone_2

people on this forum do like to come up with the most ridiculous and outrageous scenarios in order to try to prove a point.
if it is a valid point, then it can be proven far more easily and realistically

lighting_up_the_chalice

clemmatis wrote: »

I read it -- re-read it -- before posting my comment. Indeed I cited it, #262, in my post. Perhaps you'd like to read that (post 296 above, which you quoted -- HTH).



"Until the bedroom tax was introduced, a single 18 year old, living alone, would have been entitled to HB paying all the rent for a 6 bedroom social housing unit."




It is a statement of fact about legal entitlement to a certain size of social housing IF ALLOCATED SUCH A PROPERTY, and of full HB entitlement IN THE EVENT OF SUCH AN ALLOCATION.

But unless that is actually likely, it is inflammatory and prejudicial nonsense.

I repeat my question.

You've gone to the trouble of quoting me, and those quotes say nothing about a single person being allocated such a property. However, the FACT remains that, until bedroom tax was introduced, a single person, regardless of age, was entitled to the full rent if living alone in a 6 bed social housing unit.

Again, that is a statement of fact.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

you night just as well say hb would be paid to a teenager for a 50 bedroom country mansion ,,, the scenario is just as likely

If 6 bedrooms is just too extreme an example for you to get your head around, then call it 3 bedrooms. Does that really make it any better? A single teenager living alone in a 3 bed house getting their full rent paid by HB?

bloolagoon

nannytone wrote: »

people on this forum do like to come up with the most ridiculous and outrageous scenarios in order to try to prove a point.
if it is a valid point, then it can be proven far more easily and realistically

I view that it is a valid point regardless of probability (which yes is zero), however, I do know of a family with 2 children same gender allocated a 4 bed home. It was factual that there was no upper limit of rooms with any expectation of contribution towards rent for those on full housing benefit. It was down to local discretion and common sense.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

people on this forum do like to come up with the most ridiculous and outrageous scenarios in order to try to prove a point.
if it is a valid point, then it can be proven far more easily and realistically

It's more than a mere point, it's a statement of fact. Are you seriously trying to defend the system which would have paid a single teenager, living alone, the full rent on a 6 bedroom social housing unit?

nannytone_2

a teenager living alone in a 3 bed is still fart fetched. the national shortage in all housing sectors is 1 bed properties.
the liklihood is that if no bedsits or 1 beds are available, the teen would be allocated a 2 bed at most

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

a teenager living alone in a 3 bed is still fart fetched. the national shortage in all housing sectors is 1 bed properties.
the liklihood is that if no bedsits or 1 beds are available, the teen would be allocated a 2 bed at most

Again, I didn't mention allocation.

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

However, the FACT remains that, until bedroom tax was introduced, a single person, regardless of age, was entitled to the full rent if living alone in a 6 bed social housing unit.

Again, that is a statement of fact.

It's also a statement of fact that a single person, regardless of age, is still entitled to full rent if living alone in 6 bedroom private housing without being liable for bedroom tax.

But it's just as unlikely that a 6 bedroom private property would be affordable within LHA limits, as it is that a 6 bedroom social housing property would be occupied by a lone tenant.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

It's also a statement of fact that a single person, regardless of age, is still entitled to full rent if living alone in 6 bedroom private housing without being liable for bedroom tax.

But it's just as unlikely that a 6 bedroom private property would be affordable within LHA limits, as it is that a 6 bedroom social housing property would be occupied by a lone tenant.

Very true, a single person COULD get all their rent on a 6 bedroom house covered by LHA.

However, prior to the bedroom tax, that same single person WOULD get all their rent on a 6 bedroom house covered by HB.