MPs debate Housing Benefit, 12 November c.1.45pm

UKParliament

Our goal is to post up information on work undertaken in the House of Commons that has a consumer focus but which may not be highlighted elsewhere. We encourage discussion and comments concerning the topic or content of the debate.


Housing Benefit: Opposition Day Debate
Due to take place Tuesday, 12 November between 1.45-2pm* (until 7pm) in the House of Commons Chamber

Opposition days are allocated for the discussion of subjects chosen by the Opposition. The Opposition generally uses them to raise questions of policy and administration.


The motion for the debate:

That this House regrets the pernicious effect on vulnerable and in many cases disabled people of deductions being made from housing benefit paid to working age tenants in the social housing sector deemed to have an excess number of bedrooms in their homes; calls on the Government to end these deductions with immediate effect;

furthermore calls for any cost of ending them to be covered by reversing tax cuts which will benefit the wealthiest and promote avoidance, and addressing the tax loss from disguised employment in construction; and further calls on the Government to use the funding set aside for discretionary housing payments to deal with under-occupation by funding local authorities so that they are better able to help people with the cost of moving to suitable accommodation.


What do you think about the motion for debate?

To read full amendments to the motion for debate please see ‘Business Today’ at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/commons/agenda-and-order-of-business/#session=73895&year=2013&month=10&day=12


How to watch:

The debate can be viewed on Parliament TV (Silverlight or Windows Media Player required to stream TV): http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14103

Transcripts of proceedings in the House of Commons Chamber are available three hours after they happen in http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/


*Following the end of Permitted Development (Basements) Bill: Ten Minute Rule Motion, It may begin later if any Urgent Questions or Statements are granted on the day, as Parliamentary business is subject to change.

paddedjohn

What do I think? That its a waste of valuable parliamentary time that could be put to better use.

bloolagoon

And what about those in private rentals are you going to discuss them too?

MP's discussing altering the LHA next week?

Wicked_witch

Well, it doesn't need to be abolished does it? But it does need radical reform so as not to disadvantage the genuine cases of need and, quite honestly, needs to be extended to pensioners. Oh, and councils also need to be given funding to build one and two bed homes so people who want to move actually can. Given the costs of that, abolishing it would be the cheapest and fairest move. It won't happen though, so no point in getting worked up!

jacques_chirac

bloolagoon wrote: »

And what about those in private rentals are you going to discuss them too?

MP's discussing altering the LHA next week?

They didn't shout and moan loud enough

MissMoneypenny

The time would be better spent if parliament discussed how they were going to give better housing to those in private rents i.e. adopt our European cousins housing laws from EU countries that have large numbers of citizens in private lets, as we are now getting.

In the UK, if a private tenant dare complain about the repairs not getting carried out i.e. leaks in the roof or the boiler not being fixed, they get given a Section21 by the landlord and get chucked out! That's really hard for those that have school age children as they may then have to move areas and schools if that happens, so they put up with the lack of repairs. Hard too for the old or those that can't find a new deposit while they wait for the other deposit to be returned. These are the most vunerable people for housing in our society, yet parlaiment isn't discussing how to protect these people!

If a landlord lets out their property without getting their mortgage lenders consent, their tenants do not have the same security as those who rent from a landlord who did have consent. When one of these types of landlords get repossessed by the lender, the remainder of their tenants contract isn't recognised by the lender if they have more than 2 months on their contract to run and they often have to go to court to get those 2 months granted, but the tenant has to keep paying their rent to that landlord right up to the repossession and will often will have to pay for their new rental too, as the law makes the tenant honour the contract!

Even with consent from the lender, the private renting tenent does not have the same security or rights, that the social tenant has.

Those in social housing have security, cheap rents and they get their repairs caried out in a timely manner.

MPs should be prioritising their debate on the most vunerable first; and that isn't the non-working social tenants' of working age.

In terms of votes: How many voters are there in private lets and decent landlords? How many non working tenants of working age, are there in social housing and bad landlords?

teabelly

LHA is already based on need. There is nothing wrong in principle with social sector tenants only being housed according to their actual need. Unfortunately if the council/housing association doesn't have suitable accommodation the idea goes to pot quite quickly.

I also think the definition of a bedroom needs to be put into law to require all properties to have bedrooms of minimum sizes or they're not counted as bedrooms at all. If you can't fit a full sized single bed, a wardrobe, have access to a radiator and to be able to move around in the room then it shouldn't be called a bedroom under any circumstances. The 7' x 7' that used to be the old standard seems to be a reasonable approximation of a size of room that is the minimum acceptable.

dodger1

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The time would be better spent if parliament discussed how they were going to give better housing to those in private rents i.e. adopt our European cousins housing laws from EU countries that have large numbers of citizens in private lets, as we are now getting.

In the UK, if a private tenant dare complain about the repairs not getting carried out i.e. leaks in the roof or the boiler not being fixed, they get given a Section21 by the landlord and get chucked out!

Those in social housing have security, cheap rents and they get their repairs caried out in a timely manner.

When I was in private renting I never had a single problem with repairs getting carried out in a timely manner, I can also say the same about both daughters and my ex. Landlords are the same as tenants, there are good and bad, and tarring all of either group with the same brush is frankly daft.

As far as cheap rents are concerned you need to differentiate between social housing and social housing through a housing association. Certainly where I live (Southampton) HA rents are on a par with private rents. For me the security of tenure was the main reason for getting and staying in my HA flat.

bloolagoon

dodger1 wrote: »

When I was in private renting I never had a single problem with repairs getting carried out in a timely manner, I can also say the same about both daughters and my ex. Landlords are the same as tenants, there are good and bad, and tarring all of either group with the same brush is frankly daft.

As far as cheap rents are concerned you need to differentiate between social housing and social housing through a housing association. Certainly where I live (Southampton) HA rents are on a par with private rents. For me the security of tenure was the main reason for getting and staying in my HA flat.

So if they are on par why do they need grants and money from the government to build new homes? They'd be self sufficient and raise money from rentals surely?

dodger1

bloolagoon wrote: »

So if they are on par why do they need grants and money from the government to build new homes? They'd be self sufficient and raise money from rentals surely?

I can't answer your question, I just know what I and my fellow inmates pay and that it's equivalent to private rents. Housing associations are supposed to be non profit so if they aren't making a profit from our rent then maybe that's why they need the grants. That's no more than a guess though.

[Deleted User]

the noes to the left had it big surprise
as labour mp after labour mp said...the economics of the mad house