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

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

Which is no different to what the bedroom tax is doing, those who cannot afford to pay will be evicted.

Many will decide that, with modest budgeting, they CAN afford to pay. The amounts aren't dissimilar to the shortfalls faced by those in private rent, and they seem to manage OK.

mazza111

clemmatis wrote: »

Two Welsh housing associations made this point last year, one in written evidence to the UK government.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bedroom-tax-empty-homes-end-2728143


If the "bedroom tax" policy had been properly thought through and if it and other measures to reduce under occupancy had been implemented in stages, as in Fulham Council's offering of limited-term tenure, only, to new social housing applicants, various problems could have been avoided.

Yes, there was an article I read about the proportion of Scottish people affected too which IIRC was pretty high.

I actually don't mind Mrs Smith who's sitting in a 3 bedroom property being asked to downsize into a more suitably sized property, as I do believe in downsizing.

But the amount of disabled people this is affecting is astounding.

I've just read about that woman who killed herself because of this tax too. So sad for her family and for the poor guy who was driving.

clemmatis

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

OK. Tell me how the introduction of fixed term tenancies DOESN'T address the issue by forcing people from their homes?

It grants them secure tenancies (secure subject to breach of contract, obviously) for a fixed period of years known in advance, as opposed to life tenancies and the possibility of "inheritance". I'd prefer to improve conditions and tenure for all tenants, a massive expansion of social housing, and numerous mixed developments; and to retain life tenure but make that apply to social housing, not to a specific property. And in the case of limited term tenancies, I'd want provisions against unreasonable eviction, at term's end.

But there is a difference in human terms between a known fixed term and a tenure sine die but subject to a disruption that could not reasonably have been foreseen when the tenancy began, it may be, decades before.

lighting_up_the_chalice

clemmatis wrote: »

It grants them secure tenancies (secure subject to breach of contract, obviously) for a fixed period of years known in advance, as opposed to life tenancies and the possibility of "inheritance". I'd prefer to improve conditions and tenure for all tenants, a massive expansion of social housing, and numerous mixed developments; and to retain life tenure but make that apply to social housing, not to a specific property. And in the case of limited term tenancies, I'd want provisions against unreasonable eviction, at term's end.

But there is a difference in human terms between a known fixed term and a tenure sine die but subject to a disruption that could not reasonably have been foreseen when the tenancy began, it may be, decades before.

But what happens at the end of the fixed term? If you aren't prepared to evict, it has no real meaning and makes no difference.

As an aside, Nanny took on her 2 bed tenancy AFTER the bedroom tax was announced, so she has had the entire duration of her tenancy to prepare. Just one example, but fairly typical.

clemmatis

mazza111 wrote: »

Yes, there was an article I read about the proportion of Scottish people affected too which IIRC was pretty high.

I believe so. It's high in both countries, I think.

I actually don't mind Mrs Smith who's sitting in a 3 bedroom property being asked to downsize into a more suitably sized property, as I do believe in downsizing.

But the amount of disabled people this is affecting is astounding.

That's the thing -- well, part of it. Asking social housing tenants --and private tenants where appropriate -- and owner occupiers to consider downsizing is fine, particularly if (means-tested) help is offered. Pushing people to move when they've lived somewhere for 20 years and had every reason to think they'd be able to stay there, where they've put down roots, where their children went to school, where perhaps their church is, is not fine. And yes, pushing disabled people to move from specially adapted houses is even worse.

I've just read about that woman who killed herself because of this tax too. So sad for her family and for the poor guy who was driving.

She'd lived there a long time, and brought up her children there. She'd been offered a new property -- and some financial help -- but the new place was I believe some miles away and not near public transport. According to one account, though, she'd packed her belongings, ready to move. Then, I suppose, she just snapped. I read she walked into the lorry driver's path -- horrible for him, indeed.

nannytone_2

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

So does the tax payer?

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


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.


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.

and your family didnt get child benefit?
free healthcare?
free education?

the tax i paid contributed towards things that many other people needed.
just as your tax pays for things that others need too.

just because i am now in a position that means i have real difficulty in finding work, doesnt mean that this has always been, and always will be the case.

i just hope that you or no one you care about ever finds themselves in a position where they need state help.
because trust me ... they will be met with the same reaction for others like yourself, who obviously think having a disability is a choice

nannytone_2

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Yours, or the HA's?

as long as you keep paying the rent then its mine.

it is a secure tenancy that can only be terminated through non payment of rent or anti social behaviour ( im a very good neighbour)
so keep paying the tax dear!

custardy

nannytone wrote: »

and your family didnt get child benefit?
free healthcare?
free education?

the tax i paid contributed towards things that many other people needed.
just as your tax pays for things that others need too.

just because i am now in a position that means i have real difficulty in finding work, doesnt mean that this has always been, and always will be the case.

i just hope that you or no one you care about ever finds themselves in a position where they need state help.
because trust me ... they will be met with the same reaction for others like yourself, who obviously think having a disability is a choice

quite a juxtaposition between these posts. How much tax do you estimate you paid in your working years?

nannytone wrote: »

as long as you keep paying the rent then its mine.

it is a secure tenancy that can only be terminated through non payment of rent or anti social behaviour ( im a very good neighbour)
so keep paying the tax dear!

interesting choice of words
We used to have someone similar on the boards
she hides in the competition boards as a replacement for finding employment

nannytone_2

Dogger69 wrote: »

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

no they dont.
and usually comments like that get my back up.

but to you and the other self righteous posters who think that because they pay tax, they have the right to tell disabled people that they can live anywhere, regardless of quality of life or conditions simply because they are lucky enough to have a job....

i say thanks... not to you, but to the system that i [paid into for may years in order for less fortunate people to receive the help they need.

if you dont like the system then you are free to lkeave and join another one.

but telling you to move elsewhere would be wrong wouldnt it?

nannytone_2

just to say thanks again ...
some of you will know that i had to cancel my gyn membership because i couldnt afford it with the reduction in housing benefit.
so now i can afford it again... well yes.
but ive just been told that this is an acceptable expense for my direct payments.

so thankyou all for my gym membership too!