This so called Bedroom Tax

bloolagoon

£560 pm for 2 disabled people claiming need for an extra room? Come on.....

I am amazed at the sense of entitlement they want.

Why do newspapers not interview families overcrowded and highlight this or families paying huge amounts in private rental.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

moving the family from the 4 bed to the 3 bed/ from the 3 bed to the 2 bed would be ideal.... if there was a 1 bed for the single person to movve to.
or doesnt it matter what happens to them?

They could have a look at any one of the 49 one bedroom properties available this week alone....

http://homes.manchestermove.co.uk/browse-all-homes.aspx#&r=1

bloolagoon

nannytone wrote: »

but to be fair ... ( and i know several families personally) people in 2 bed accomodation are allowed to CHOOSE to continue having children, that they cant afford to support or house, and the state picks up the tab. that is considered OK.
but people that are disabled, arent disdsabled through choice. and dont always under iccupy by choice ( usually they don't)

so in this case people that HAVE choice are being treated prefrebly to those that DON@T.

i know not all families that are overcrowded have put themselves into the position they are in. redundancy/reposession etc. but a good number dont have that excuse. they live in a 2 bed home and CHOOSE to go on and have 4 or however many children.

if the smaller properties were available ( and in the case of disabled people especiall...social housing, as disabled people need security and in many cases are unable to provide that security for themselves) then there would be no issue at all, it would be perfectly fair to expect everyone that under occupies to move.

what you said about transitional protection.... renters in the private sector got transitional protection when thre LHA rates were lowered ( wrongly in my opinion.... more should have been done to stop landlords making such vast profits)
social tenants not only didnt get any transition protection, we also had the changes in council tax benefit to contend with at the same time!
DHP is available, but DLA is being considered when making decisions as to who can receive it, which is wrong and many people are having to cut back on necessary care to pay for a room they dont want/need, all because they have no alternative housing available to them
i never even considered applying ( not that i would have been awarded anyway) but there are people FAR worse off than i am.

I think most would agree with transitional protection if you added shared accommodation for under 35's the situation is all but resolved and DHP covers remainder.

But no one can really disagree with the ethos baring the above. Why do families go to the media with half hearted and half true sob stories all this does is add fuel to fire and add to the hype that claimants are all entitled to brigade?

I know singletons with severe mental health on £57 pw facing sanctions, unable to pay rent as over local rates who would accept shared housing via the local authority. Why on earth do they not allow this option? Why force a 2 bed rental (I do agree 1 bedrooms are short supply) but IF they had shared accommodation this would help.

nannytone_2

im not being area specific... im talking in general.

it is a fact that the property type in shortest supply nationwide ( both private and social) is 1 bed.

as previously stated ... it seems to be the people with the fewest choice ( in housing and in life) that are being hit the hardest.
a family with 2 kids receiving full benefit in a 3 bed ( same sex, under 16) will have their benefit cut by about £15 a week. a single person in a 2 bed will lose about £13, a much higher percentage of their total benefit entitlement

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

im not being area specific... im talking in general.

it is a fact that the property type in shortest supply nationwide ( both private and social) is 1 bed.

as previously stated ... it seems to be the people with the fewest choice ( in housing and in life) that are being hit the hardest.
a family with 2 kids receiving full benefit in a 3 bed ( same sex, under 16) will have their benefit cut by about £15 a week. a single person in a 2 bed will lose about £13, a much higher percentage of their total benefit entitlement

Perhaps the option of a lodger should be considered by more under-occupying singletons then. Address the shortage, avoid bedroom tax AND increase your income... Win/win/win as far as I can see.

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

sont say that those people already in private rentals would then move into the vacated properties because that isnt what would happen.
those in private lets are already housed and so would be a low priority. they would still be claiming their LFA and the people forced to move would be claiming more.

so as i said.... they dont actually want anyone to move... they just wanyt to make them suffer[/B]

The people who would move into the larger properties made available will be either homeless, in more expensive private housing or in overcrowses social housing. Any of these scenarios seems to me to be an improvement on housing people who aren't paying their own rent in overlarge properties.

nannytone_2

bloolagoon wrote: »

I think most would agree with transitional protection if you added shared accommodation for under 35's the situation is all but resolved and DHP covers remainder.

But no one can really disagree with the ethos baring the above. Why do families go to the media with half hearted and half true sob stories all this does is add fuel to fire and add to the hype that claimants are all entitled to brigade?

I know singletons with severe mental health on £57 pw facing sanctions, unable to pay rent as over local rates who would accept shared housing via the local authority. Why on earth do they not allow this option? Why force a 2 bed rental (I do agree 1 bedrooms are short supply) but IF they had shared accommodation this would help.

it can already be done. people can have joint social housing tenancies. but it is upto the individual to find someone to share with, rather than being paired up by the council/KA. the other option is lodgers, but that would leave the lodger with even less security than they would have in the private sector, and as previously stated... for disabled people in particular, security is a major issue.

i know what you mean about the people that go to the press. the stories are so inaccurate and no research seems to have been done. they do people that are really struggling a great diservice. the article posted above, with the mother saying that she would have no alternative but to put the son into care, is one such story. minimally the household income would be £210 a week without DLA (income support/CA for the mother, ESA and minimum lrc/lrm DLA for the son)
the article says £84 a month shortfall... but that seems excessive (£20.50 a week) its more likely to be about £15 a week, so should be manageable, if they really dont want to move

nannytone_2

Dunroamin wrote: »

The people who would move into the larger properties made available will be either homeless, in more expensive private housing or in overcrowses social housing. Any of these scenarios seems to me to be an improvement on housing people who aren't paying their own rent in overlarge properties.

if theyre in private lets then they arent home;ess.

as ibe said many times .... my flat and the other 5 in the block were all offered to families first. and all were refused. so who should live in them? or would it be better if they were empty?

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

if theyre in private lets then they arent home;ess.

as ibe said many times .... my flat and the other 5 in the block were all offered to families first. and all were refused. so who should live in them? or would it be better if they were empty?

Bedroom tax has changed peoples priorities in terms of social housing. Many who turned down your flat while sticking it out for a 3 bed house may well re-assess that decision now that the extra room attracts a real cost.

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

it can already be done. people can have joint social housing tenancies. but it is upto the individual to find someone to share with, rather than being paired up by the council/KA. the other option is lodgers, but that would leave the lodger with even less security than they would have in the private sector, and as previously stated... for disabled people in particular, security is a major issue.

i know what you mean about the people that go to the press. the stories are so inaccurate and no research seems to have been done. they do people that are really struggling a great diservice. the article posted above, with the mother saying that she would have no alternative but to put the son into care, is one such story. minimally the household income would be £210 a week without DLA (income support/CA for the mother, ESA and minimum lrc/lrm DLA for the son)
the article says £84 a month shortfall... but that seems excessive (£20.50 a week) its more likely to be about £15 a week, so should be manageable, if they really dont want to move

The son must be getting at least MRC for CA to be payable to the mother and it says in the article that they were in arrears pre April with mother living on toast at that time, which is why I said it must be a budgeting issue. And, of course, their household income is going to be far more than £210 with rent and CT adding around £150 to the figure.

Newspapers really should check their facts and not just accept emotive sob stories that fall apart at first glance.