speleo1 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 i think this is a good idea,people who work have to pay rent why not let others on benefits pay something towards the rent,and then maybe make them pay some council tax as well, not all say they cant afford to pay exta,but they seem to be able to run a car,smoke and drink, with no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S10mainly Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 i said England not Scotland...... and Denmark isnt Scandanavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Could be.... Prayer space Toilets to be facing anyway but East Seperate bathroom (with lower sink)/ toilet for ritual washing The could be some reasons for it to be true weird that, does all of darnall, or bradford have houses like that then? houses built in the 40s, 50s, 60s etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark6535 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 I wouldnt worry about it to much unless the Government are going to find all these one bedroom properties that dont exist...... They may not be able to kick you out because of the lack of one bedromed propertys, but if you stay - you pay! It's up to you to find somewhere with only one/two bedrooms (which ever your needs may be) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S10mainly Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Ive got no idea about the places you mention I only added the points as possibilities as to why it may be possible that some social housing would be built with muslim tennants in mind. After all such builds would not have any effect on the suitability of the property for non muslims tennants - To build in such a way just increases the percentage of tennants that would find the hosue more acceptible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doris Night Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 I doubt it will happen. Just more throth from the throthers. Most Social Housing providers are struggling as it is. The last thing they want is for a large amount of their tenants to fall into arrears, because that's what will happen. If we're talking about moving people out of homes that are now too big for them, that won't happen either. There's not enough available homes for them to move to, And if they did move them out who'll pay? Removals etc. What about the furniture what won't fit in the smaller property? Will the council take it to the tip? If people refuse to move out the cost of evicting them will be great. About 5,000 quid per tenancy at today's rates. Then what will happen to these evicted people? Will they live on the streets? Some will, others will be housed in homeless accommodation at huge cost. The there's a thousand other unjoined up thoughts from the government. Like, what if the tenants have a school age child and they are forced to move, will the child have to change school? Believe me this will all end up at the graveyard of failed government policy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doris Night Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 As I understand it, the rule will still apply, for an under-occupancy, whether there is actually any alternative accommodation available or not. I can see the UK being forced to return to the first half/ first sixty years or so of the last century, when one house would house three or four families, in unsanitary conditions sharing one bathroom or loo between twenty or more people. I foresee a steep rise in "Rachman" housing. The people united, will never be defeated...Its time the worm turned PT.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark6535 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 I doubt it will happen. Just more throth from the throthers. Most Social Housing providers are struggling as it is. The last thing they want is for a large amount of their tenants to fall into arrears, because that's what will happen. If we're talking about moving people out of homes that are now too big for them, that won't happen either. There's not enough available homes for them to move to, And if they did move them out who'll pay? Removals etc. What about the furniture what won't fit in the smaller property? Will the council take it to the tip? If people refuse to move out the cost of evicting them will be great. About 5,000 quid per tenancy at today's rates. Then what will happen to these evicted people? Will they live on the streets? Some will, others will be housed in homeless accommodation at huge cost. The there's a thousand other unjoined up thoughts from the government. Like, what if the tenants have a school age child and they are forced to move, will the child have to change school? Believe me this will all end up at the graveyard of failed government policy.. The whole point of this not to kick people out of their houses - It's to raise the amount of rent some people pay - In other words is a TAX on council tenents with a spare room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Can see some logic in applying this rule to new social housing lets but it's idiocy to try and retrospectively impose it. Would the rich tolerate something like this, a chunk of their money wiped out by a new tax because the goalposts get moved? With this new bedroom tax it's people who can't defend themselves who get targeted. The sensible thing to do is bring this in gradually, addressing the deficiencies in housing provision by encouraging building to meet the real demand. It would take longer but as always with the Tories it's all or nothing, new procedures and processes imposed with very little attention to the fine detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark6535 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 As stated before council rents are to be on a par with private housing, BUT NO. As a single bloke renting a three bedroomed house in the private sector say i pay £150 per week (for the sake of argument) by 2016 a three bedroomed council house will also be £150.00 per week, but because I'm on my own I will have to pay the bedroom tax of 25% on top meaning my council house will cost me £37.50 more than the private sector - Council houses for the rich, thats a turn up for the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.