Ms Macbeth Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 I thought the reduction in housing benefits was going to apply whether underoccupying claimants rented or bought their home? Housing benefits which cover private rent and mortgage interest relief are calculated differently to those for social housing. https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/benefit/payments/localhousingallowance.html ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 18:33 ---------- that's called Support for Mortgage Interest, not housing benefit Its also worth pointing out that people with mortgages are treated worse than tenants if they lose their income. Housing benefit kicks in straight away once a claim has been verified, but mortgage interest relief doesn't start for 13 weeks for working age people. At one point it was 39 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted February 10, 2013 Author Share Posted February 10, 2013 ---------- Post added 10-02-2013 at 18:33 ----------[/color] Its also worth pointing out that people with mortgages are treated worse than tenants if they lose their income. Housing benefit kicks in straight away once a claim has been verified, but mortgage interest relief doesn't start for 13 weeks for working age people. At one point it was 39 weeks. so what are you suggesting the gov should do ? if anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Thoughts A social housing house receives benefit no matter how many people live in it. Generally there is only one name on a tenacy agreement. Currently the level of housing benefit, as far as I'm aware, is dependant on the property. That means a £2,500 benefit for say a 3 bedroom house, is the same whether it is occupied by one person or a family of five. The argument that it will vastly reduce benefit expenditure is crazy, unless the local authority makes a single person purposely live in a four bedroom house just to try and reduce their benefit payments. If a single person moves out of a three bedroom property and a family of 4 move in, the full rate of benefit would be applied, saving nothing. The single person moves to a single bedroom property saving nothing. The argument that there are not enough houses is also crazy. There are approximately 700k vacant properties in the UK. Will people have more kids, in an over-populated country, as we're told time and time again, just to retain their properties? The royal family also receive money from the state and live in under occupied properties. Does that mean they will have to move too? Are there anough types of specific properties to meet each occupency level? Would problem families all be located in specific areas creating no-go zones? Will it lead to social problems? How are local authorities going to keep track? The logistics are mind-boggling. I could go on. Personally, I can't see it working and it will almost certainly be reverted under a new government anyway. It's a nasty policyand vindictive of certain aspects of society. A sure-fire vote winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted February 10, 2013 Author Share Posted February 10, 2013 Thoughts A social housing house receives benefit no matter how many people live in it. Generally there is only one name on a tenacy agreement. Currently the level of housing benefit, as far as I'm aware, is dependant on the property. That means a £2,500 benefit for say a 3 bedroom house, is the same whether it is occupied by one person or a family of five. The argument that it will vastly reduce benefit expenditure is crazy, unless the local authority makes a single person purposely live in a four bedroom house just to try and reduce their benefit payments. If a single person moves out of a three bedroom property and a family of 4 move in, the full rate of benefit would be applied, saving nothing. The single person moves to a single bedroom property saving nothing. The argument that there are not enough houses is also crazy. There are approximately 700k vacant properties in the UK. Will people have more kids, in an over-populated country, as we're told time and time again, just to retain their properties? The royal family also receive money from the state and live in under occupied properties. Does that mean they will have to move too? Are there anough types of specific properties to meet each occupency level? Would problem families all be located in specific areas creating no-go zones? Will it lead to social problems? How are local authorities going to keep track? The logistics are mind-boggling. I could go on. Personally, I can't see it working and it will almost certainly be reverted under a new government anyway. It's a nasty policyand vindictive of certain aspects of society. A sure-fire vote winner. and people with more so called clout would disagree with you i dont usually say this mecky but well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsTrophy Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Someone let a venture capitalist into the cabinet meeting didn't they. Britain is sinking fast and the money creatures are rubbing their talons. Many families keep a room for their children to come back to when they go to uni, join the forces or go abroad. It is hard enough getting some board money out of them when they are there never mind when they are on the other side of the planet. Vulnerable adults will become even more vulnerable if they have to share in order to make ends meet. Local examples have highlighted to me that a fairer cross of social skills are essential when trying to create a balanced community. This solution is going to create misery and cost lives. If a single person in a two or three bedroom flat or house refuses to move to a prepared one bedroom flat or house then I can see the point in the deduction. People with no choice should not be made to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Thoughts A social housing house receives benefit no matter how many people live in it. Generally there is only one name on a tenacy agreement. Currently the level of housing benefit, as far as I'm aware, is dependant on the property. That means a £2,500 benefit for say a 3 bedroom house, is the same whether it is occupied by one person or a family of five. The argument that it will vastly reduce benefit expenditure is crazy No one has ever claimed that. What it should do is mean that people move to more appropriately sized houses and so the pressure on the system is slightly reduced. unless the local authority makes a single person purposely live in a four bedroom house just to try and reduce their benefit payments. If a single person moves out of a three bedroom property and a family of 4 move in, the full rate of benefit would be applied, saving nothing. The single person moves to a single bedroom property saving nothing. However the 4 person family has now been housed, when previously they had nowhere to go. The socially owned house is being used efficiently. The argument that there are not enough houses is also crazy. There are approximately 700k vacant properties in the UK. Not owned by councils though. Will people have more kids, in an over-populated country, as we're told time and time again, just to retain their properties? Seems highly unlikely. Think about what you're suggesting, the 'retention' would only be necessary when one of the existing children moved out, probably at the age of 20 or more. The royal family also receive money from the state and live in under occupied properties. Does that mean they will have to move too? Are there anough types of specific properties to meet each occupency level? Would problem families all be located in specific areas creating no-go zones? Will it lead to social problems? What in this policy would suggest that they might be? How are local authorities going to keep track? The logistics are mind-boggling. Which bit is difficult to keep track of? I could go on. Personally, I can't see it working and it will almost certainly be reverted under a new government anyway. It's a nasty policyand vindictive of certain aspects of society. A sure-fire vote winner. It's a reasonable way of trying to encourage more appropriate use of social housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedith Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 How many people will just not tell the council that their siblings have left home and keep them on the documentation as still residents of the property? Not sure how it all works really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 How many people will just not tell the council that their siblings have left home and keep them on the documentation as still residents of the property? Not sure how it all works really? Probably a similar number that already commit various kinds of benefit fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted February 11, 2013 Author Share Posted February 11, 2013 Probably a similar number that already commit various kinds of benefit fraud. them mps have a lot to answer for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedith Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I'd have council house tenants microchipped, that way the council could keep a check on who is living where and bill them accordingly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.