Bedroom Tax Is It Abolished

Legacy_user

I have heard from my neighbour that the Bedroom Tax as been abolished,is this true?

tomtontom

No, it is not true.

tomtom256

There was a loophole that meant long term claimants were exempt and could request a refuud, however they are, if they haven't already, closing this loophole.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Loophole closed. Nothing about abolishing Bedroom Tax.

specialboy

You can't abolish something that doesn't exist.

westerby1

specialboy wrote: »

You can't abolish something that doesn't exist.

UNLESS you are the Government they said they were removing (abolishing) the spare room subsidy, and that has never existed! The actual name of the policy, in all the legislation, is the under occupancy penalty (charge) and yet the Government insist on calling it the removal of the spare room subsidy! So if others want to call it the bedroom tax, why shouldn't they?

Whatever its name, it is a grossly unfair policy when there are not enough smaller homes for people to move into!:mad:

By the way, there is no such thing as road tax, but it has always been known as such.

System

Why is it unfair to put the social housing occupants in the same position as private housing occupants?

rogerblack

!!!!!! wrote: »

Why is it unfair to put the social housing occupants in the same position as private housing occupants?

Because the social housing stock does not have the free properties in which people can downsize.

And people moving from social to private rental may end up actually claiming more in HB than they claimed in LHA, enriching none but the landlords, paid for by every one of us.

whodathunkit

rogerblack wrote: »

Because the social housing stock does not have the free properties in which people can downsize.

And people moving from social to private rental may end up actually claiming more in HB than they claimed in LHA, enriching none but the landlords, paid for by every one of us.

And allowing an overcrowded family in private accommodation to move to cheaper social housing and so saving us money as well as providing suitable accommodation for them.

tomtontom

rogerblack wrote: »

Because the social housing stock does not have the free properties in which people can downsize.

And people moving from social to private rental may end up actually claiming more in HB than they claimed in LHA, enriching none but the landlords, paid for by every one of us.

And those in private rentals cannot find anywhere cheaper, but still can only claim LHA at the 30th percentile.

nannytone_2

same old argument.
the private renters have it bad ... so instead of making their lives easier, you all want the social tenant to have it just as bad!!
when did fairness mean bringing everyone DOWN to the same level?
why isnt it fair to raise those at the bottom up a bit?
just a thought ....