Bedroom Tax megathread

[I1L2T3]

It's a ridiculous law. It would only make sense if starting from scratch in an ideal world where no houses had yet been allocated and there was enough to go round to achieve an optimum allocation

 

But the reality is that the houses are already allocated, there aren't enough of them and there aren't enough of the right types. Systems already existed to help tenants exchange houses, in fact it was fairly common to see threads on this forum discussing property swaps.

 

Now to the numbers. £455m is the expected saving. Yet the government has just had to increase the emergency housing support fund from £60m to £155m. Local authorities are seeing a surge in claims for emergency housing support. In Sheffield last year there were an average of 100 claims for emergency housing support per month. In April 2013, the first month of operation of the bedroom tax, there were 1400 claims. This is more in one month than the whole of last year.

 

Staff at housing associations and charities are receiving training to help detect mental illness and suicide risk in tenants, both issues being expected to become more prevalent because of the pressure that the tax will place on people.

 

It's a complete and utter mess. The way out of this is to apply the rules to new housing allocations only. It will take time to rebalance allocation of the housing stock but it would be fairer.

[sheff1johnny]

To add more to the argument, there isn't supposedly enough council housing to go round, and yet in the torie wisdom they are selling hoousing stock again to council tennants, thus creating even more of a housing shortfall.

[poppet2]

And to make matters worse, those people who find themselves having to downsize to a one bedroomed flat and have no choice but to opt into the private sector, end up costing the tax payer double the amount of rent.

[I1L2T3]

And to make matters worse, those people who find themselves having to downsize to a one bedroomed flat and have no choice but to opt into the private sector, end up costing the tax payer double the amount of rent.

 

Also without support from the housing association which through economies of scale can afford to employ staff trained in specific issues, e.g. mental health and disability.

 

From that to a private landlord only in it for the money!

 

These are the hidden costs. It looks like no cost-benefit analysis of the bedroom tax has been done.

 

I'm stunned that the LibDems ever voted this through. It's hare-brained.

[poppet2]

I want to know if Labour win the next election whether they have plans to repeal this.

It's easy to criticise the Coalition in opposition, but what exactly are their plans on this subject if they gain power?

[mikem8634]

Bedroom Tax Sees Thousands More Claiming Council Funds: Is Spare Room Subsidy Costing Country MORE?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/18/bedroom-tax-council-funds-homelessness-_n_3296933.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cukt2%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D180518

 

Revealed: Devastating impact of 'bedroom tax' sees huge leap in demand for emergency hardship handouts for tenants

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-devastating-impact-of-bedroom-tax-sees-huge-leap-in-demand-for-emergency-hardship-handouts-for-tenants-8621666.html

 

Just some food for thought.

[I1L2T3]

I want to know if Labour win the next election whether they have plans to repeal this.

It's easy to criticise the Coalition in opposition, but what exactly are their plans on this subject if they gain power?

 

I wouldn't repeal the whole thing. It actually makes sense to place some onus on housing authorities to ensure that housing is allocated and efficiently as possible. But I think it should only apply the rules to new allocations. It also makes sense to collect data on at least a city/regional level to clearly identify gaps in provision and changing local trends in housing requirements. Some advantages:

 

1. Housing is forced, where possible, to be allocated according to need.

2. Gaps in provision are identified which gives opportunity for them to be addressed.

3. Where an allocation is for a size beyond what is required then a tenant can take it on with the proviso that they must pay a premium for it. Some will be able to do it.

4. More could be invested in exchange systems.

 

This policy should have been more of a slow burner, more like a 10+ year project. As always the Tories have gone for the big bang smash and grab approach. And with it will have within a year I reckon potentially killed off and toxified what could have been a very sensible policy.

[sheff1johnny]

The problem with the bedroom tax may be the percentages involved, depriving someone of a quarter of there money has to be wrong on so many levels. Prehaps 5 % reduction, and a 10 % reduction on rent depending on size of property would be easier for people to accept.

[robbert69]

So that means they shouldnt change the system to make it fair across the board , IE social and private renting receive the same housing benefit. ? Just because the system has favoured social tenants dosnt mean it has to continue that way . Why should people in private rental properties have to pay for spare bedrooms themselves while people in social housing continue to have their spare rooms paid for by the tax payer. ?

 

just shoot us all why don't you.. the government states you need a set amount to live on and thy got the cheek to take it away listen we did not get in the mess by pulling 1/2 of the country houses down and selling of the stock to find out there not to find down the line there not houses out there for every one what the government need to do is build new council houses and stop punishing people ......Anyone who thinks that ANYTHING is going to be achieved by slapping additional financial burdens on already desperate people struggling to meet their basic needs - and then making them homeless through eviction seriously needs their head examining.

 

Jack Scott said last night (at peoples assembly meeting) that it would probably cost around £3 million to NOT evict tenants. This money has GOT to be found from the council's budget.

 

Refusal by local authorities to implement this nastiest of the Tory\LibDem ideas is essential and simply must be done.

 

The bedroom tax is already proving unworkable on so many levels. Action by the Local Authority will a) be another huge nail in its coffin and b) show solidarity with the people affected.((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( Jack Scott said that Labour Council would have to cut £3million elsewhere from budget on top of £170million cuts already made over last year, but he never once said that Labour should refuse to implement the cuts. He said 100 of 150 local authorities are Labour - if they all refused to carry out Bedroom Tax, if they all refused to carry out cuts, what could Pickles do? Truth is Labour Cllrs know that Labour govt will continue with cuts if they get in as well. Like Gareth said, we've got to build such campaign that forces them to Not Evict, including the threat of standing anti-bedroom tax/anti cuts candidates against them in next years local elections.

 

 

Article 25.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

[ECCOnoob]

Where does it say in 25 of the Human Rights Act that social tenants with a spare room they dont need should not be charged more rent than vs those who have only the rooms they need?

 

Where does it say in 25 of the Human Right Act that a social tenant who has surplus space should not be forced to move out into something smaller and more suitable?

 

Social housing is there to provide a basic need to everyone. That's what it does. It does not have to provide anything extra to anyone.

 

You want extra rooms for no reason - pay for it. You dont or cant pay for it then look elsewhere (including private rental if necessary). I have always said that nobody should have an automatic right to state subsidised housing unless they REALLY need it anyway.