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

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

that gem again.
you thought it acceptable for a blind person to move 20 miles away, to a place theyve never been with no one they know.
thats your opinion and thats fine.
but what you arent grasping is that if everyone that needed to move to a 1 bed place tried ....
there are not sufficient numbers of 1 bed properties in the entire country in both social or private housing to accomodate them all.

what do you suggest?
i suppose emigrating would be a suitable option?
or should people be penalised for thinking that was uneasonable?

Once the demand is there, one bed units will be built. Much as the changes to the LHA shared room rate encouraged many landlords into setting up house-shares. But if the incentive to downsize isn't there, no-one will bother and the demand will never exist. Bedroom Tax has been on the agenda since before you even moved in, but you still chose to accept a 2 bed rather than create demand for a 1 bed.

nannytone_2

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Just stop moaning, and bid like others have to.

If there isn't a social housing shortage in your area, as you state, then you will win.

im not moaning.
the property is MINE already.

its others on this forum that are complaining that i have what i needed

there is no social housing shortage of 2 or 3 beds and many affected by the reduction in benefit because of that fact.
i didnt need to bid because the HA gave me priority as an existing tenant.

and thaks for paying ALL my rent for me btw

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Once the demand is there, one bed units will be built. Much as the changes to the LHA shared room rate encouraged many landlords into setting up house-shares. But if the incentive to downsize isn't there, no-one will bother and the demand will never exist. Bedroom Tax has been on the agenda since before you even moved in, but you still chose to accept a 2 bed rather than create demand for a 1 bed.

so i should have done the decent thing and live in a hostel?

i have no doubt that 1 beds may be built. but in the meantime it is oj for people to suffer real hardship?
i somehow dont think you would be saying this if it was you or someone you care about that was struggling to the degree that some people are.

i worked for 30 years and paid tax.... and am so glad that i never became so hardened about the plight of others.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

so i should have done the decent thing and live in a hostel?

i have no doubt that 1 beds may be built. but in the meantime it is oj for people to suffer real hardship?
i somehow dont think you would be saying this if it was you or someone you care about that was struggling to the degree that some people are.

i worked for 30 years and paid tax.... and am so glad that i never became so hardened about the plight of others.

There isn't a shortage of 1 beds in the East Midlands. You could have avoided that hostel AND your recent issues by simple compromise.

As for being hardened by the plight of others, it isn't ME with the "I'm alright Jack and sod the rest" attitude, unable to accept that anyone else could possibly need that one bed more than me, unable to recognise that some peoples housing needs are far more serious than a £14 a week top-up. In case you hadn't realised, that hardened example is YOU..

Jamie_Carter

nannytone wrote: »

i dont pay any now dear.

So does the tax payer?

nannytone wrote: »

but people having to pay £20 out off £100, or even £14 out of £71 isnt the same as 1/5 to someone on a healthy income

Why do you assume that others have a healthy income? Nearly half of my income goes on housing

nannytone wrote: »

dont give me the taxpayers money line.

Yes I will, because the tax payer shouldn't have to pay for a room that you don't need. I, and many other people pay more for a three bedroom property than we would for a two. And that's because we choose to have three bedrooms. But the difference is that we pay it rather than the tax payer.

nannytone wrote: »

you and your family probably benefited from the 30 years of tax that i paid.
the only difference is that i contributed gladly to people worse off than myself.

No I have always paid tax.

I often contribute to those worse off than myself. But my objection is paying for !!!!!!!!!!s who think that the world owes them everything for free because they once paid tax.

Jamie_Carter

nannytone wrote: »

im not moaning.
the property is MINE already.

its others on this forum that are complaining that i have what i needed

there is no social housing shortage of 2 or 3 beds and many affected by the reduction in benefit because of that fact.
i didnt need to bid because the HA gave me priority as an existing tenant.

and thaks for paying ALL my rent for me btw

Yours, or the HA's?

squinty

nannytone wrote: »

oj dear. shall i explain again?

USUALLY the bidding shiuts on dunday, and nominations are passed to the HA the following day.. which would be monday.
so because i dont even think about bank holidays, i just followed the usual pattern.
i assumed HA got the nomination monday, contacted the nominated person tuesday and contacted me wednesday.

shock horror!!!!
they received the nomination and contacted the nominated person on the same day!!!

hardly crime of the century to be 24 hours out is it?

i suppose it is if youre looking for reasons to criticize.

Nanny,

I think you have this wrong, and this is leading to some of the confusion. And in quoting the wrong days you are doing yourself no favours.

You have said in another thread where you live.

In your district the CBL cycle runs from Thursday to Tuesday. It would therefore be normal practice for the Council to contact the Housing Association/Applicants on a Wednesday.

Hope this clarifies.

Dogger69

nannytone wrote: »

and thaks for paying ALL my rent for me btw

Smug comments like this sum you up nannymoan - it's all about you! :rotfl:

clemmatis

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Unfortunate, but true. If all the small cogs decided to work only in their own selfish self interest, the machine would break. That's why we have a parliament and a judiciary.

I'm not sure where to start. There's just a massive amount to discuss. (Parliament?) (Never mind.)

Under-occupation is one element of the under supply. That cannot be denied.

I haven't denied it.

People who own/rent bigger properties are already paying a bedroom tax through higher rents/mortgages/running costs.... and have been for decades.

People in grace-and-favour properties aren't. People who own larger properties "pay a bedroom tax" for an expected return.

However, I wouldn't have issue with, say, the 25% CT discount being reduced for houses with more than 1 bedroom, if that would help. Social Housing tenants aren't the whole story, but they ARE part of it.

Of course they're part of the story. Part. But the discussion's often framed in a way that suggests social housing tenants on benefit are the whole story, and as though poor private tenants, specifically, are the ones subsidising them. There's an element of "we're suffering, they can/should too", made worse by the government's "scroungers" rhetoric, which is having a significant effect. And this is, really, to save money, not to help poor private sector tenants: if all "under-occupiers" simply paid the "tax", the resulting saving wouldn't be used for housing.

Removing, rather than reducing, the discount would certainly be a gesture towards equality of contribution. (Yes, reducing it would be too.) So would re-valuing houses in England, and introducing a new top band, as in Wales. But it won't happen any time soon.

lighting_up_the_chalice

clemmatis wrote: »

Of course they're part of the story. Part. But the discussion's often framed in a way that suggests social housing tenants on benefit are the whole story,

That might be something to do with the title of this entire forum?