Leeds leads on getting round 'bedroom tax'

john539

clemmatis wrote: »

Because people in secure tenancies have been led to believe they have a secure tenancy.

In answer to your possibly implied question, I would reform private tenancy law and try to reduce private rents.

They are in theory and in general more secure, yes. But why level down? (See above.)

Exactly, why lower the standards in social housing to those in private sector.

They should raise standards in private sector.

Not sure why people keep comparing the two.

Dogger69

clemmatis wrote: »

Because people in secure tenancies have been led to believe they have a secure tenancy.

In answer to your possibly implied question, I would reform private tenancy law and try to reduce private rents.



They are in theory and in general more secure, yes. But why level down? (See above.)



I hadn't realised existing private tenants receiving a housing benefit and an agreed rent had been faced with paying more for the same property (because of a change in LHA) or moving out. I would have supported helping them -- opposed the application of the change to them and/or supported help for them to move, yes indeed.





Agreement on what? I would want support for both groups of tenants in the situation/s I have outlined.

I am not suggesting levelling down.

I fail to see what difference the security of tenure makes to benefit entitlement. Both groups have the same access to alternative properties - tenure is irrelevant.

If you believe that security of tenure should be a factor, then surely those in private tenancies should be granted more, to reflect the increased costs associated with short term tenancies - moving, letting agent fees and so on?

Yes, those previously in receipt of LHA/ HB would have received a lower entitlement when their entitlement was annually reviewed. The change was far less publicised than the under occupancy charge, so less opportunity for tenants to make alternative plans.

Dogger69

john539 wrote: »

Exactly, why lower the standards in social housing to those in private sector.

They should raise standards in private sector.

Not sure why people keep comparing the two.

'People' are not comparing the two sectors, we are stating that all claimants should be treated equally. Unless you have a valid argument why some claimants should have a lower entitlement than others?

lighting_up_the_chalice

I'm not quite sure how reducing revenues will help Leeds to pay the cost of building more SH homes it so badly needs, let alone save any services from the cuts. Still, as long as those already in SH save a few quid, why should they care about others, or even their own?!

john539

Dogger69 wrote: »

'People' are not comparing the two sectors, we are stating that all claimants should be treated equally. Unless you have a valid argument why some claimants should have a lower entitlement than others?

You are comparing the two all the time, why ?

Dogger69

john539 wrote: »

You are comparing the two all the time, why ?

Reread my above post. It's not difficult to understand - the issue here is equality.

john539

Dogger69 wrote: »

Reread my above post. It's not difficult to understand - the issue here is equality.

Social Housing & Private are different sectors.

Apples & Pears, different.

princessdon

john539 wrote: »

You are comparing the two all the time, why ?

Because the issue is benefits not housing. If PR got £100 JSA and SH got £71, it's unfair. The issue is paying HB based on rooms, therefore the two are directly comparable.

lighting_up_the_chalice

john539 wrote: »

Social Housing & Private are different sectors.

Apples & Pears, different.

But they are both fruit. And they both make lovely cider. So not THAT different.

Dogger69

john539 wrote: »

Social Housing & Private are different sectors.

Apples & Pears, different.

We are talking about the tenants, not the housing. Why should one group receive more than the other?