Leeds leads on getting round 'bedroom tax'

princessdon

Dogger69 wrote: »

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

Coz they are special?

Housing_Benefit_Officer

john539 wrote: »

Good for Leeds, 2 fingers up to the clueless Tory government ! :beer: :T :rotfl:

Lap up the propaganda from Leeds Council.

Of the 15,000 properties impacted by the bedroom tax in Leeds a mere 837 get redesignated and they have had to drop their rents so less rental income and of these 837 only one third are occupied by tenants impacted by the bedroom tax.

The Government must love councils that re-designate properties as less housing subsidy is paid so it is win win for the Government - either tenants having their benefit cut for having a spare room or reduction in housing benefit paid because the council lowers the rent when they re-designate properties with fewer bedrooms.

There are still 14,700 tenants in Leeds having their benefit cut because of the bedroom tax so Leeds City Council is meaningless to the overwhelming majority of tenants.

jancee_2

It may be crumbs but it's something for a significant [imho] number of people. At least they're trying.

And as they point out, this is more cost effective than legal proceedings chasing unpaid rents which may result from the so called 'bedroom tax'.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

Lap up the propaganda from Leeds Council.

Of the 15,000 properties impacted by the bedroom tax in Leeds a mere 837 get redesignated and they have had to drop their rents so less rental income and of these 837 only one third are occupied by tenants impacted by the bedroom tax.

The Government must love councils that re-designate properties as less housing subsidy is paid so it is win win for the Government - either tenants having their benefit cut for having a spare room or reduction in housing benefit paid because the council lowers the rent when they re-designate properties with fewer bedrooms.

There are still 14,700 tenants in Leeds having their benefit cut because of the bedroom tax so Leeds City Council is meaningless to the overwhelming majority of tenants.

But not to those on the waiting list for Social Housing, languishing in the private rented sector while Leeds City Council reduces their housing stock by over 800 rooms. Shame on those who cheer such a selfish act.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jancee wrote: »

It may be crumbs but it's something for a significant [imho] number of people. At least they're trying.

And as they point out, this is more cost effective than legal proceedings chasing unpaid rents which may result from the so called 'bedroom tax'.

Cost effective? What about morally effective? You sound like a dyed in the wool Tory.

princessdon

:cool: I'm going to add paying for a gym/study to my list now

jancee_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

But not to those on the waiting list for Social Housing, languishing in the private rented sector while Leeds City Council reduces their housing stock by over 800 rooms. Shame on those who cheer such a selfish act.

I do take that point. But the reality is that if a lot of these tenants could downsize they would. Everyone knows there isn't the availability. And 'reducing the housing stock' is a paper transaction only. Should one of these properties become available to rent for a family it could be reclassified as two- or three- etc bedroomed.

clemmatis

princessdon wrote: »

They reduced the LHA to the lowest 30% a few years ago, that is why many pay more in rent privately as 70% are above the limit.

I have said which groups I would support and under what circumstances.

jancee_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Cost effective? What about morally effective? You sound like a dyed in the wool Tory.

Cost effective for the Council in not having to waste money on chasing rents. That's economic sense rather than Tory leanings.

How is it immoral?

Tory? *splutters*

clemmatis

princessdon wrote: »

:cool: I'm going to add paying for a gym/study to my list now

Troll on

..........