housing benefit reduction. a solution but the council is blocking it!

skintmacflint

I've already suggested Nannytone reapplies for higher rate PIP mobility- as it's likely she'll meet the criteria now that it is changed to =cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without the aid of another person, guide dog or orientation aid. Which seems to fit her present circumstances.

The extra funds would cover the rent shortfall, and provide a stop gap solution. As would applying for discretionary housing payment, which others have suggested. Both suggestions have been dismissed .

There is an element of pride, independence and stubborness involved here. Although it's perfectly understandable. It must be very dificut to adjust to having to rely on others , or ask for help, when for a lifetime one has been fierecely independent and someone who looked after others.

But the solution is not to change the housing benefit rules , or for the government to start building millions of 1 bedroom houses..

dktreesea

The bedroom tax seems to be a way to bring social housing tenants into line with privately housed tenants who receive LHA.

Say a private renter gets the LHA for a 1 bedroom flat, but instead rents a 2 bedroom one. Assuming the LHA is insufficient to fully fund a two bedroom flat, this leave the private renter with having to make a co-payment towards his/her rent, or relocate and move to a cheaper property.

mazza111

dktreesea wrote: »

The bedroom tax seems to be a way to bring social housing tenants into line with privately housed tenants who receive LHA.

Say a private renter gets the LHA for a 1 bedroom flat, but instead rents a 2 bedroom one. Assuming the LHA is insufficient to fully fund a two bedroom flat, this leave the private renter with having to make a co-payment towards his/her rent, or relocate and move to a cheaper property.

In an ideal world this would be perfect. But in this area, I could rent a 2 bedroom for the same rate as is payable for a 1 bedroom. I would imagine they may have done this because of the lack of one bedroom properties even in the private sector. I do understand that we may be unique in this scenario though. We just don't have one bedroom properties available. Even looking through flat shares, and bedsits, there are very few available. Nearest I've seen is about 25 miles away.

I'm a great believer in people downsizing when they can, even before this BT came in. Whether they are receiving benefits or not. Unfortunately not everyone does it, which is why they've brought it in. And I do agree with it in principal. I just don't think it should apply to 2 bedroom properties when there are no (or very few) one bedroom properties to downsize to.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

In an ideal world this would be perfect. But in this area, I could rent a 2 bedroom for the same rate as is payable for a 1 bedroom. I would imagine they may have done this because of the lack of one bedroom properties even in the private sector. I do understand that we may be unique in this scenario though. We just don't have one bedroom properties available. Even looking through flat shares, and bedsits, there are very few available. Nearest I've seen is about 25 miles away.

I'm a great believer in people downsizing when they can, even before this BT came in. Whether they are receiving benefits or not. Unfortunately not everyone does it, which is why they've brought it in. And I do agree with it in principal. I just don't think it should apply to 2 bedroom properties when there are no (or very few) one bedroom properties to downsize to.

And if everyone stays in their 2 bed, there will be none for those in 3 beds to occupy..... and so on..... and so on.

There may well be not ENOUGH 1 beds for EVERYONE to downsize to, but there are 1 beds available. Those who CHOOSE to downsize, rather than paying the extra 14%, should be well served.

mazza111

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

And if everyone stays in their 2 bed, there will be none for those in 3 beds to occupy..... and so on..... and so on.

There may well be not ENOUGH 1 beds for EVERYONE to downsize to, but there are 1 beds available. Those who CHOOSE to downsize, rather than paying the extra 14%, should be well served.

There are very few one bedroom places available in this entire county. 5 in this immediate town. 1 maybe suitable for people with limited mobility (only 1 ground floor flat, haven't seen inside, so it could be totally unsuitable.) We have 2 bedroom flats that aren't allowed children in them. So no good to families anyway. There is no priorities given to people who are over occupying in this area. I've been there and downsized before there was any mention of a bedroom tax. So you expect people to move away from their support networks? I guess you don't need anyone eh? You can't CHOOSE to downsize when the properties aren't available.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

............. There is no priorities given to people who are over occupying in this area.

Really? Just a 5 minute search through a couple of local HA's uncovered these......

http://www.ardenglen.co.uk/documents/allocationspolicy2010.pdf

4.6 These are the main types of housing needs for which you can get points:

You are homeless or threatened with homelessness
You do not have secure accommodation
You are living with family or friends and need a permanent home of
your own
Your present accommodation is in poor condition, or does not have
basic facilities
You have to share basic facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom with Policy on allocations: Approved by MC 02/03/10
others
Your present accommodation is overcrowded, or it is too big for your needs

http://www.gha.org.uk/content/mediaassets/doc/New%20Allocations%20Policy%20-%202_.pdf

6.1 Housing Needs Priorities
We give priority to the following categories of housing need.

(h) Under-occupation
Because we have relatively few larger properties (i.e. 3 bedrooms or more) we will award a priority to GHA tenants who are living in a three bedroom property or larger where the household is looking for a smaller property, for example an elderly tenant or younger tenant who has succeeded to a tenancy wants to move to a smaller property.
Amendment: Additionally, in order to assist GHA tenants directly affected by Welfare Benefits changes as referred to at 5.4; we will also offer this priority grouping to GHA tenants under-occupying 2 bedroom properties. This provision will be reviewed one year after the introduction of this policy.
This is an opportunity to release larger sized property for families and we will actively promote mutual exchange among our tenants through Rightsize, a specific programme in HomeSwapper. However, moves will still be voluntary. To help customers to exercise this choice we will pay reasonable removal costs, decoration and carpets up to the value of £2,000. We will also provide practical assistance to ensure the move takes place with as little disruption as possible to the tenant. Section 15 sets down our approach in
greater detail.

mazza111

There is an overcrowding priority that gives extra points (20) iirc. For under occupying in this area, it's 1 point. I've been on the list for under occupying. The dd's HA gives 10 points for under occupying, but the LA doesn't.

If you care to have read what I wrote, I did say in THIS AREA. We have 2 bedroom properties in abundance. It's the only size of property we do have in abundance. If you're not fussy about what area you go to in our town, you can be allocated a 2 bedroom property within a couple of weeks.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

There is an overcrowding priority that gives extra points (20) iirc. For under occupying in this area, it's 1 point. I've been on the list for under occupying. The dd's HA gives 10 points for under occupying, but the LA doesn't.

If you care to have read what I wrote, I did say in THIS AREA. We have 2 bedroom properties in abundance. It's the only size of property we do have in abundance. If you're not fussy about what area you go to in our town, you can be allocated a 2 bedroom property within a couple of weeks.

So, even with just one point, there IS an under-occupancy priority. The overcrowding priority will also help to free up smaller properties.

As housing providers interests are not best served by increased rent arrears, I have my doubts that yours is in the almost unique position of doing little to ensure affordability.

mazza111

I've reread the housing policy which has been rewritten since I moved. It's 50 points for over crowding. 10 for under occupying. That does nothing to encourage people to downsize. 150 for homelessness. Therefore the homeless will always be accommodated first (rightly so.) But the difference between over and under occupying isn't doing enough to encourage people to move.

So my friend who's waiting for a 2 bedroom place from a 3, would have a very slight better position than me who is wanting to move from 2-2. But not much, as she's being very fussy when it comes to areas. I've not been.

At the end of the day, if a 2 bedroom property becomes available, they are more likely to give it to a family with 2 children than my friend with one child who's already under occupying, whereas if they had to use a bit of foresight.... the person with 2 children could have the 3 as per their entitlement and the friend could have the 2.

The same happened with a disabled friend of mine in a different town. She was a virtual prisoner in her own home because of her health, husband had to lift mobility scooter down, then lift her down, then lift their child down in push chair.

But her cousin who had just had her first child got given priority ahead of her because the disabled lass was already housed. The cousin was causing over crowding in her mother's house. It would have made more sense to give the friend the gnd floor flat, and the cousin the first floor one, that would be 2 people off the waiting list instead of one. Instead, a year down the line, my friend still has to be carried downstairs every time she wants to leave her flat

I just think they should use a bit of forward planning when applying housing policies.

I've already stated we may be unique in our housing scenario, on several occasions. But why should we need to pay more because of the situations in the South East and London? When we don't have the same problems that are encountered there.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

I've reread the housing policy which has been rewritten since I moved. It's 50 points for over crowding. 10 for under occupying. That does nothing to encourage people to downsize. 150 for homelessness. Therefore the homeless will always be accommodated first (rightly so.) But the difference between over and under occupying isn't doing enough to encourage people to move.

So my friend who's waiting for a 2 bedroom place from a 3, would have a very slight better position than me who is wanting to move from 2-2. But not much, as she's being very fussy when it comes to areas. I've not been.

At the end of the day, if a 2 bedroom property becomes available, they are more likely to give it to a family with 2 children than my friend with one child who's already under occupying, whereas if they had to use a bit of foresight.... the person with 2 children could have the 3 as per their entitlement and the friend could have the 2.

The same happened with a disabled friend of mine in a different town. She was a virtual prisoner in her own home because of her health, husband had to lift mobility scooter down, then lift her down, then lift their child down in push chair.

But her cousin who had just had her first child got given priority ahead of her because the disabled lass was already housed. The cousin was causing over crowding in her mother's house. It would have made more sense to give the friend the gnd floor flat, and the cousin the first floor one, that would be 2 people off the waiting list instead of one. Instead, a year down the line, my friend still has to be carried downstairs every time she wants to leave her flat

I just think they should use a bit of forward planning when applying housing policies.

I've already stated we may be unique in our housing scenario, on several occasions. But why should we need to pay more because of the situations in the South East and London? When we don't have the same problems that are encountered there.

Every bit of your entire post indicates that you do have the same issues as providers in the South East and London. Maybe not to quite the same extent, but if supply is so short that only the homeless, or those in priority need, get a look in, the issues are the same.

Offering overcrowded families greater priority ensures that those families can move to bigger properties, thus freeing up those properties for smaller families (or singles). You're on about single person accommodation, a resource for which you will never be in direct competition with an overcrowded household who need a bigger property. Seems fair enough to me.