Leeds leads on getting round 'bedroom tax'

lighting_up_the_chalice

jancee wrote: »

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.

Rubbish. There's plenty of availability in Leeds. Well, there was. There's 800+ rooms less available now, thanks to a Labour council.... What an utter disgrace! Taking the food from the mouths of their own and convincing them to cheer about it too!

lighting_up_the_chalice

jancee wrote: »

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*

What about the 800+ who could have been taken out of LHA.... Or don't those maths count in your version of morality?

princessdon

clemmatis wrote: »

Troll on

..........

Why - it's now official HB covers an unspecified room. It's a fact based on Leeds and their reclassification. You wonder why there is a divide - look no further than situations like this! Every action has a reaction.

[Deleted User]

another subject more suited to DT

jancee_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Rubbish. There's plenty of availability in Leeds. Well, there was. There's 800+ rooms less available now, thanks to a Labour council.... What an utter disgrace! Taking the food from the mouths of their own and convincing them to cheer about it too!

Give over. There aren't 800 rooms less available. And if there was plenty of availability there wouldn't be such a huge waiting list.

And I'm lefter than a Lefty McLefterson of Leftingham City, Redshire.

*sings the Red Flag*

lighting_up_the_chalice

jancee wrote: »

Give over. There aren't 800 rooms less available.

Really....

Leeds council has come up with a novel way of sidestepping the controversial bedroom tax: reclassifying more than 800 "spare" rooms in its social homes as "non-specific rooms".

jancee_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Really....

Leeds council has come up with a novel way of sidestepping the controversial bedroom tax: reclassifying more than 800 "spare" rooms in its social homes as "non-specific rooms".

At the risk of flogging my point to death, it's a paper transaction.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jancee wrote: »

And if there was plenty of availability there wouldn't be such a huge waiting list.

Then why, if there is massive demand and low supply, are they having to offer bribes?

http://www.leedshomes.org.uk/docs/Mutual%20Exchange%20Customer%20Flyer.pdf

Or, you could just take a look at all those 1 beds going to Band c bidders (hint, under-occupiers get band b).

http://www.leedshomes.org.uk/default.aspx?menuPath=LettingsResults

lighting_up_the_chalice

jancee wrote: »

At the risk of flogging my point to death, it's a paper transaction.

You mean they will have a system which differenciates the property qualifiers between those paying and those claiming when the time comes to re-let? Something like "You claim, so you can only have a 2 bed. But you don't, so you can have a 3."... How very socialist of you. And by "socialist", of course, I mean "Tory".

Cheeky_Monkey

Sophistication? Don't talk to me about sophistication .......... I've bin to Leeds :rotfl: