MSE News: Thousands of tenants to get bedroom tax rebate

MissMoneypenny

regbrown wrote: »

I don't suppose anyone is confused

There have been plenty of threads on here where people are confused and thought it applied to them, when it didn't i.e. when they paid their own rent. Once it is explained that it is a housing benefit reduction, then they understand (as they don't claim housing benefit).

regbrown wrote: »

Although I would personally wish the conservative party cared as much about the disabled people who have been affected half as much as they do about how its labelled....

• Many disabled people work.
• If they don't work and need a carer, then they get full benefits for that room.
• If they don't work and want an extra room (as oppose to need an extra room) then they will have to use their other benefits to pay for the extra rent that their Housing Benefit doesn't cover.

That 'paying extra for the rent that isn't covered by Housing Benefit' is quite common in private renting; even when they are only renting a house that has the minimum bedrooms allowed by benefits. Whereas those that rent social houses, will always have their rent paid in full by Housing Benefits for their 'minimum bedrooms allowed'.

custardy

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

I'm talking about those people who have been forced to move because although they actually needed the spare room (for grandchildren, disabled etc) they didn't qualify and couldn't afford the reduction in benefit. It was still their family home!

Needed?
The irony of your statement is hilarious.
So parents cant get a house with enough bedrooms,yet the grandparents should have a state subsidised spare room?

custardy

mojos.revenge wrote: »

I have just emailed my LA, I have lived here for 30years and claimed HB, my increase for two extra bedrooms is £132pm, so if I do fit the criteria then I would be looking at over £1k.
I didn't have the option to move as there are no one bedroom properties where I live. I did ask my housing association to keep he informed but nothing has ever come of it.
This is what I find hard, being trapped in a situation through no fault of my own and no way to correct it. I genuingly feel that if they cannot offer a suitable property to exchange they should be making an exception. Although this has already been discussed for far too long and nothing changes.

Trapped? How many years have you been on HB with 2 spare bedrooms?

MissMoneypenny

Pincher wrote: »

Ah, the good old sitting tenant with protected tenancy.

An old lady bought a house cheap in early 1970s, because it had a sitting tenant who cannot be thrown out. The old tenant out-lived the owner, who had been waiting for the tenant to die for two decades. As it turns out, the daughter of the tenant acquired protected tenant status because she had lived there for decades with her mother.

The son of the owner was less scrupulous, and got his mates to harrass the daughter, including damaging her car, and she was driven away at last. He got full market price when he sold.

Private landlords who do that, are committing a criminal offence.

Pincher wrote: »

The government was very strict with protecting tenant's "rights" when the owner is a private landlord. Now that they want to cut benefit costs, they can't wait to strip away the protection. Why don't they just talk to the son's mates, and drive the tenants on to the streets.

Private tenants in the UK still have very little rights compared to social tenants in the UK (and compared to private tenants in a lot of other EEA countries).

The welfare state have already cut the benefits for private tenants on housing benefits (from the 50th percentile to the 30th). Now it is the turn of social tenants on benefits to have their housing benefit cut if they rent a property that has more bedrooms than they need. They are still much better off than a pivate tenant, as the social tenant's rent will always be paid in full for their Housing Benefit 'bedroom allocation'. Not so, for the private tenant on housing benefits.

The welfare state is there to provide a safety net of shelter and food and not there to provide lifestyle choices; which is what it had become and why we are known in other countries as "Benefits Britain".

Simply put: Those people who work and don't claim any benefits, can't afford to keep paying the ever growing, massive welfare bill. Hence why the welfare state is going back to what it was intended for.

~Chameleon~

custardy wrote: »

Needed?
The irony of your statement is hilarious.
So parents cant get a house with enough bedrooms,yet the grandparents should have a state subsidised spare room?

Well, yes, because there are plenty of grandparents out there that regularly have their grandchildren to stay over for whatever reason (illness, childminding, etc) and also parents that have separated and have shared custody. Neither of these fall into exemption category so where are the children supposed to sleep? On the floor?

Also, couples that need to sleep in separate rooms due to disability were penalised. And no, not everyone was/is entitled to DHP to cover the extra cost.

jacques_chirac

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Well, yes, because there are plenty of grandparents out there that regularly have their grandchildren to stay over for whatever reason (illness, childminding, etc) and also parents that have separated and have shared custody. Neither of these fall into exemption category so where are the children supposed to sleep? On the floor?

Also, couples that need to sleep in separate rooms due to disability were penalised. And no, not everyone was/is entitled to DHP to cover the extra cost.

Children are quite capable of sleeping on the sofa or a camp bed for a few nights. Do you think those of us who own our homes or pay our own rent have spare rooms sat there waiting for guests?

If a disabled person with a genuine need for a spare room and no surplus income was not awarded a DHP then they would have strong grounds for appeal. The only cases I have seen refused are those with more than enough income to cover the charge themselves.

custardy

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Well, yes, because there are plenty of grandparents out there that regularly have their grandchildren to stay over for whatever reason (illness, childminding, etc) and also parents that have separated and have shared custody. Neither of these fall into exemption category so where are the children supposed to sleep? On the floor?

Also, couples that need to sleep in separate rooms due to disability were penalised. And no, not everyone was/is entitled to DHP to cover the extra cost.

So the state should pay for spare rooms if anyone says they need it?
You understand that there are people who needs rooms for every night of the week?
ever heard of sofabeds?

nannytone_2

i moved to a 1 bed and my grandson still stays. roughly 1 weekend a month and part of all school holidays.
when i had a 2 bed flat he didnt use the 'spare room' as he slept in with me. now he is older ( almost 10) he sleeps in my bed and i sleep on the sofa, so neither of us is on the floor. he has the bed because i dont want to be forced to vacate the living room at 9 o clcok,
i also have a zed bed and an inflatavle matress, xo if needed could accomodate upto 4 people.

to use the argument that grandparents 'need' a spare room for grandchildren just trivialises the real issues that many are facing

MissMoneypenny

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Well, yes, because there are plenty of grandparents out there that regularly have their grandchildren to stay over for whatever reason (illness, childminding, etc)

Those are lifestyle choices and not what the welfare state is intended for. If the parents or grandparents wish the children to have their own bedroom when they stay, then they can pay for the rent for that extra bedroom/s, themselves.

I remember my grandmother sleeping on the sofa when we stayed with her when we were ill, as she gave us children her double bed. My grandfather worked nights and would use the bed when us grandchildren got up.

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

and also parents that have separated and have shared custody. Neither of these fall into exemption category so where are the children supposed to sleep?

Are you seroiusly saying the welfare state should pay twice to put a roof over the head of the same children ? Why can't the non resident parent give their children their bed when their chidren stay over while they themselves sleep on the sofa? Of they could get a job and pay for the extra room if they don't want to do that.

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

On the floor?

What is wrong with the floor? I remember massive London families weekend parties in 2 bedroom terraces; where the females slept on the floor in one bedroom like sardines and the males in the other. The eldest female family members (in their 70s+) had the cushions from 3 piece suite.

It's this expectation from benefiit claimants that others should pay for their lifestyle choices; an expectation that has only arrived in this country over the last 10/15 years; that has to be reversed.

~Chameleon~

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Are you seroiusly saying the welfare state should pay twice to put a roof over the head of the same children ? Why can't the non resident parent give their children their bed when their chidren stay over while they themselves sleep on the sofa? Of they could get a job and pay for the extra room if they don't want to do that.

And in the case of joint custody where neither parent qualifies for an extra room? The children have no room to call their own in either home?

Not everyone claiming HB is unemployed.