bedroom tax

[Ootohere]

They better go win their Westminster seats if they want to go cutting anyones budgets UK or Scotland.

 

As they try to stop Nick Clegg winning his seat and knocking the likes of Danny Alexander out of having a seat,

they better watch their own backs.

Maybe David Cameron or George Osborne may be taking the package they get as Ex MP's & Ministers..

[VWD]

Semantics George.

 

Without properties to downsize people into, then technically it is a tax on the poor.

it's not semantics. It's about practicalities, and finance. Most councils have a policy of helping folks to downsize. Locally it's £1000 per bedroom with removal costs. BUT how many councils have two/one bedroom houses on tap. So with no spare properties to offer, most councils arwe in effect taxing those who'd like to move ,but can't because of the council's problems. 

[Llanigraham]

it's not semantics. It's about practicalities, and finance. Most councils have a policy of helping folks to downsize. Locally it's £1000 per bedroom with removal costs. BUT how many councils have two/one bedroom houses on tap. So with no spare properties to offer, most councils arwe in effect taxing those who'd like to move ,but can't because of the council's problems. 

 

Warwickshire might, but I don't know of any Welsh councils that have this policy. Dyfed CC have stated that they do not have enough one bedroomed flats available. 

[VWD]

Warwickshire might, but I don't know of any Welsh councils that have this policy. Dyfed CC have stated that they do not have enough one bedroomed flats available. 

So -they knowlingly charge folks for over occupancy ,knowing that they can't move them .

[BJM]

So -they knowlingly charge folks for over occupancy ,knowing that they can't move them .

 

Or, they have been knowingly over-paying people for properties that they do not require, and have now realised that they will no longer do so.

[Ootohere]

The the Treasury paying Housing Benefit were then over paying the Local Authority then or the Housing Association that provided the property.

 

The Housing Benefit gets paid to the Public Landlord not the Occupier,

or sometimes they pay the Tenant to make them feel 'Worth While', then let them moonlight keeping the money.

Then the Local Authority write off the arrears, sometimes Millions of Pounds.

(& the defaulters when homeless are allowed again to get a tenancy, Public Rental or Private,

and again default on paying the rent.)

 

But the reason the people are over provided with rooms might be because there was not enough being spent on suitable sized housing, so they used the housing stock they have.

or the Government and Local Authorities allowed the Best Social Housing to be bought privately.

 

Then ex Social Housing is Rented out Privately,

and then too much Housing Benefit to be paid to Private Landlords.

[VWD]

Or, they have been knowingly over-paying people for properties that they do not require, and have now realised that they will no longer do so.

No- they allocated folks a house , but are now caught in thecsituation that having given a tenant a property that HMG says is too large, they canot re home the tenant to a more suitable property. In that case ,i 'd say LA are at fault.

But there's news - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26295761

 

Now I wonder if this goes to ECHR if a verdict ( as is usual) against HMG is likely.

[4wheel]

Completely ridiculous. Back to the dark ages when there was a window tax and even today you can still see evidence of windows bricked up to avoid paying. This ludicrous tax only effects those who are low earners anyway and those with 10 + bedroomed homes are still laughing.Tax the poor and pensioners seems to be the governments answer to raising more cash. Let's not even go to the ridiculous sums the speed camera's and parking fines are raking in for the councils.It's the man in the middle who is bailing this government out of the s..t. Pick and Pay is the order of the day..

[VWD]

 

But the reason the people are over provided with rooms might be because there was not enough being spent on suitable sized housing, so they used the housing stock they have.

or the Government and Local Authorities allowed the Best Social Housing to be bought privately.

 

Then ex Social Housing is Rented out Privately,

and then too much Housing Benefit to be paid to Private Landlords.

An alternative might be laid at the doors of local authorities. In this town ,certain areas had a lot of un occupied properties due to the failure of any policy on un sociable tenants. I've seen as many as 20 empty properties( all LA) in a road of 123 houses, with approx 10 being private and occupied. That's almost 18%. WHY-folkswill stay in substandard privat housing rather than move to an area with a bad reputation . I know we were "blackmailed" into accepting this house .If we'd rejected it, we'd be moved down the list. No concern for the fact that it was an area of high crime and vandalism . I've seen a few single ladies with children ( mostly divorced) being given houses larger than needed as no one else would consider them . These ladies on benefits were moved from refuge accomodation to council housing as it cost the council less for an under occupied house than refuge housing, and there was limited refuge accommodation . There was also the idea of problem families deciding that areas with problems were less prone to them being found out of causing problems. I know of a few families requesting a transfer from a decent area to this road after problems with neighbours and quite simply wishing to vanish .

Then there's as George says - sale of council properties. Helped along by the last Government, aided by the ODPM, headed by the ex ship steward, and his vision of council housing in private ownership via stock transfer. They didn't want LA to have large quantities of social housing and help fund it, but they were prepared to compell LA to promote a stock transfer campaign paid for out of the Housing Revenue Account to "persuade" tenants to vote for transfer. Locally during the stock transfer campaign, we saw a peak in tenants buying. Then ,again as some couldn't sell the houses after the statuary period, the tenants used the residual value to fund a purchase in a decent area and rent out the property. And those renting were desperate and on benefits. So who paid the extra over and above the standard council rent- yep ,you'vec guessed it , the taxpayer.

See http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/

 

As for the bedroom tax - therfe's now a scramble to close a loophole http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/regulation/date-confirmed-for-bedroom-tax-loophole-to-close/7002027.article

Which means IMHO, that we have yet another set of lawmakers not fit for the purpose.

 

As for me, there's me and the mrs. We are both pensioners in our own right. We rent a council property with a large HB & CT discount. We'd like to move to somewhere smaller. But to cityhall that means a pensioners one bedroom bungalow. We'd accept a two bedroom as possibly in the future I might need a seperate room ,and at present certainly I need one ,as at night mrs has her TV recordings I don't want to watch, whilst I've got my PC. But personal preferences don't figure highly down the road. Then again, I've fought ,with others to de yob this area, and it's now somewhere folks want to move to. So why ( as one councillor said when we last looked for a move) would we want to move to somewhere with problems. I've done it once and for my pains of having my house pelted with sausages, my car covered with mushy peas and eggs ,and over £600 damage to the body work, why would I want to move to an area i don't know.