I'm not sure why your still banging this drum. It's been shown to you without a shadow of doubt, absolutely demononstrabaly that the bedroom assessment has been in place for private tenants for years before LHA was in place.
Has it? must say that this is news to me, because when I was renting a private 2 bedroomed house in 2006 I certainly wasnt expected to pay "extra" for a 'spare bedroom'
The reform of Housing Benefit (Local Housing Allowance) for tenants in private rented housing - Commons Library Standard Note
This note covers Local Housing Allowance (LHA) which was introduced for new claimants living in the deregulated private sector from 7 April 2008. LHA is not a benefit in its own right – it is the way in which the rent element of Housing Benefit (HB) is calculated for tenants living in the deregulated private rented sector. Claimants who were already in receipt of HB when the LHA was introduced will not have experienced any changes unless they have changed address or had a break in their claims. This note explains the implementation of the LHA and reforms aimed at reducing expenditure on this benefit.
When I moved into the house in 2006/7 I was briefly unemployed, and claimed housing benefit, however, I became employed in a temporary job which meant my claim was stopped and as I was employed for more than 13 weeks when the job ended AFTER the LHA was introduced and I made a new housing benefit claim I was charged a small amount because the rent on the property was deemed too high, it had nothing at all to do with the number of rooms bed or otherwise.
and as clearly indicated the LHA did NOT apply to tenants who were already living in the rented property when the change was introduced, unlike the Tories vile spare room crime which was retrospective.
What did they expect the spare room criminals who already had a "spare" room to do?
saw off the spare room? fill it with concrete? the law itself is a vile and cruel law but it's made FAR more cruel and unjust by the fact that it was retrospective.
Do you actually have any facts to back this up?
Do you realise that most people being punished by the spare room fine are either in work and or disabled? do you realise that no one ASKS for a "spare room"?
You don't need evidence to confirm that families vary in size
many of the families on the housing list would have no use whatsoever for a 2 bedroomed flat, not unless they are a very small family, because one adult, and 2 children of opposite sex both over 10 years old would not be suitable for a 2 bedroomed flat, that's just 3 people, and 2 bedrooms and it's too small,
Many families possibly wouldn't but many families would. A couple with 2 children of the same sex under 16 or different sex under 10 would probably much rather rent a 2 bedroom social housing property than a 2 bed private. There's less opportunity for them to do so because there are social housing tenants under occupying these properties. A scheme that makes them consider changing tenure doesn't seem like a bad thing.
Did you know that many councils and housing associations have lots and lots of EMPTY 3 and 4 bedroomed properties because people are afraid to rent them because they know that the slightest change in their circumstances could mean that they become spare room criminals too?
Did you know that some of these councils and housing association are even considering demolishing these perfectly good homes at a time when we have a national housing crisis because they can not afford to continue to maintain empty properties?
Which councils and housing associations? What does considering mean? Is considering a full proposal presented to council? or is it simply the musings of a councilor?
Did you know that of the 4% of spare room criminals who have been forced out of their homes since the vile law was introduced, that a large number of them have moved into private rented properties, properties which meet the criteria to allow them to claim the full rent in housing benefit, and that this full rent for their one bedroomed private flat can often be double the rent of their 2 bedroomed council flat?
This is good if it means that a family get a 2 bed social property. If that happens they are paying a social rent and not the private rent of a 2 bed.
But then, lots of Tory MPs are private landlords so it's hardly surprising that they support this law.
The private rental market was strong before the spare bed holocaust and was strong after the spare bed holacaust - I doubt Tory landlords were replying on it.
Do you know that the Tory party is the only party that supports this law?
You'll be surprised. A lot of people who aren't fortunate enough to have a council tenancy would give there right arm to be subjected to spare bed torture.
Not true if a private sector tenant is living overcrowded conditions why dont they move, plus they would be high on the council list, and a landlord who lets a home out and is overcrowded would be breaking the law and can be taken to court for it.
Smaller properties are cheaper. Big properties are more expensive, so people with low incomes save money by compromising on their accommodation.
They would certainly be a higher priority but lower priority than others. What is not in doubt is that social accommodation is scarce resource. They could be high up the list but still face a long wait.
It may be illegal - I'm not sure. I'm sure that people, families live in overcrowded conditions. Councils themselves house people in overcrowded conditions. If a couple had a child and outgrew their current residence they would immediately be overcrowded.
You don't need evidence to confirm that families vary in size
Many families possibly wouldn't but many families would. A couple with 2 children of the same sex under 16 or different sex under 10 would probably much rather rent a 2 bedroom social housing property than a 2 bed private. There's less opportunity for them to do so because there are social housing tenants under occupying these properties. A scheme that makes them consider changing tenure doesn't seem like a bad thing.
OK
Families vary in size - they're not all large.
How much is lots and lots?
Which councils and housing associations? What does considering mean? Is considering a full proposal presented to council? or is it simply the musings of a councilor?
You haven't defined anything - how can anything be the result of anything?
This is good if it means that a family get a 2 bed social property. If that happens they are paying a social rent and not the private rent of a 2 bed.
Hopefully the rent for a 2 bed property is saved.
It's unlikely because the spare bed genocide is not pervasive enough.
The private rental market was strong before the spare bed holocaust and was strong after the spare bed holacaust - I doubt Tory landlords were replying on it.
You'll be surprised. A lot of people who aren't fortunate enough to have a council tenancy would give there right arm to be subjected to spare bed torture.
I oppose BNP's fascist, rascist ideology - i couldn't give a fig what they think of spare bed crime
Me too
I don't need to provide any links - what do I need to provide a link for?
No problem at all
One important point is alot of the people effected are in adapted homes, and could not even move into the private sector, because of the adaptions that would not be in the private sector homes.
Has it? must say that this is news to me, because when I was renting a private 2 bedroomed house in 2006 I certainly wasnt expected to pay "extra" for a 'spare bedroom'
When I moved into the house in 2006/7 I was briefly unemployed, and claimed housing benefit, however, I became employed in a temporary job which meant my claim was stopped and as I was employed for more than 13 weeks when the job ended AFTER the LHA was introduced and I made a new housing benefit claim I was charged a small amount because the rent on the property was deemed too high, it had nothing at all to do with the number of rooms bed or otherwise.
and as clearly indicated the LHA did NOT apply to tenants who were already living in the rented property when the change was introduced, unlike the Tories vile spare room crime which was retrospective.
What did they expect the spare room criminals who already had a "spare" room to do?
saw off the spare room? fill it with concrete? the law itself is a vile and cruel law but it's made FAR more cruel and unjust by the fact that it was retrospective.
You forget there was a housing benefit scheme before LHA.
That housing benefit scheme required local authorities to refer the rents to the Rent Office (now the VOA) for an assessment
The Rent Office would assess the rent accordance to the number of bedrooms that person needed. A single person living in a 2 bedroom property would receive a rent assessment of a person based in a 1 bedroom property and no more.
The change with LHA was to remove the requirement to refer to the rent officer.
One important point is alot of the people effected are in adapted homes, and could not even move into the private sector, because of the adaptions that would not be in the private sector homes.
Agreed and I think it's fair to exempt these people.
Did you know that many councils and housing associations have lots and lots of EMPTY 3 and 4 bedroomed properties because people are afraid to rent them because they know that the slightest change in their circumstances could mean that they become spare room criminals too?
Makes one wonder how on earth they ever sell 3-4 bedrooms houses. You'd think people would be terrified that if sonny moved out, they'd never be able to afford the mortgage and would be stranded there.
Not true if a private sector tenant is living overcrowded conditions why dont they move, plus they would be high on the council list, and a landlord who lets a home out and is overcrowded would be breaking the law and can be taken to court for it.
There is overcrowded then there is legally overcrowded.
For private rented all rooms are counted as rooms people can sleep in not just bedrooms. For Private Rental overcrowding is calculating the permitted number of people for a dwelling in one of two ways. The lower number thus calculated is the permitted number for the dwelling.
One test is based on the number of living rooms in the dwelling (disregarding rooms of less than 50 square feet, rooms containing a toilet, and the kitchen):
one room = two persons
two rooms = three persons
three rooms = five persons
four rooms = seven and a half persons
five rooms or more = ten persons plus two for each room in excess of five rooms.
The other test is based on floor areas of each room size:
less than 50 square feet = no-one
50 to less than 70 square feet = half a person
70 to less than 90 square feet = one person
90 to less than 110 square feet = one and a half persons
110 square feet or larger = two persons.
Children under 1 do not count
Children under 10 count as half a person
Two people of the opposite sex can only share if under 10 or if a married or cohabiting couple.
Overcrowding in private rented is permitted if due to natural growth (such as a child reaching one of the specified ages, temporary (eg if a member of your family comes to live in your home for a short-time), licensed overcrowding where the council has given permission.
For social rented the bedroom standard counts bedrooms.
A seperate bedroom for each:
married or cohabiting couple
adult aged 21 years or more
pair of adolescents aged 10-20 years of the same sex
pair of children aged under 10 years regardless of sex
Even if a household is overcrowded according to the bedroom standard, this will not give rise to an automatic duty on the local authority to rehouse the household in larger accommodation.
Under the private rental overcrowding rules my home can house upto 16 people or more if the bathrooms and kitchen and hall count. Under the social housing bedroom standard my home can house upto 8 people or as few as 4 due to having 4 bedrooms.
One important point is alot of the people effected are in adapted homes, and could not even move into the private sector, because of the adaptions that would not be in the private sector homes.
Exactly. Adapted homes pretty much do not exist in the private rental sector. There have not been any in the 4+ years that I have been looking, neither are there any adapted 1 bedroom properties so those in the 2 bed properties have no other option.
The problems in the social housing sector are down to politicians from successive governments, not those hit by the "bedroom tax". The huge lack of adapted properties means that around 300,000 disabled people are stuck on waiting lists whilst living in unsafe and unsuitable accommodation. Some, who have been assessed as being in the most urgent need are not even allowed to register, leaving very little chance of ever getting safe accommodation.
I asked my local Tory and Labour candidates what their party would to do to address this problem. The Labour mp chose to waffle on about how Andy Burnham would merge social and NHS care, and the Tory did not even attempt to answer, so I think we can safely say that they plan on doing nothing.
Has it? must say that this is news to me, because when I was renting a private 2 bedroomed house in 2006 I certainly wasnt expected to pay "extra" for a 'spare bedroom'
The Rent Officers (Additional Functions) Order 1989
Reg 3 Additional Functions
3. (1) Where, in connection with housing benefit and rent allowance subsidy, a local authority applies to a rent officer for determinations relating to a tenancy of a dwelling, the rent officer shall (subject to article 5) make the determinations and give notice in accordance with Schedule 1 to this Order.
SCHEDULE 1 - DETERMINATIONS
Size and Rent Determinations
2. (1) The rent officer shall determine whether the dwelling exceeds the size criteria for its occupiers.
(2) If the rent officer determines that the dwelling exceeds the size criteria, the rent officer shall also determine the rent which a landlord might reasonably be expected to obtain, at the time the application for the determination is made, for a tenancy which is similar to the tenancy of the dwelling, on the same terms (other than the term relating to the amount of rent) and of a dwelling which is in the same locality as the dwelling, but which–
(a)accords with the size criteria for the occupiers;
SCHEDULE 3 - SIZE CRITERIA
1. One bedroom shall be allowed for each of the following categories of occupiers (and each occupier shall come within only the first category for which he is eligible)–
(a)a married couple or an unmarried couple (within the meaning of Part II of the Social Security Act 1986),
(b)an adult,
(c)two children of the same sex,
(d)two children who are less than ten years old,
(e)a child.
Since 1989, when private tenancies were deregulated to assured shorthold, housing benefit for private tenants has been restricted according to the amount of bedrooms a person is entitled to.
Well, parasite that moves in, gets free board and lodgings then moans when they are asked to contribute a tiny subsidy towards the running costs - is a bit of a mouthfull and hard to google
You call family parasites or those who are disabled that fur example
The issue of allocation of social housing is different from the issue of housing benefit. Why should somebody that only needs 2 bed housing be allocated 3 bed housing?
In many areas (including the one where I live) there has historically been a shortage of 2-bed properties. Before the "bedroom tax", their allocations policy was that families with 2 children of different sexes would be entitled to a 3 bedroom property when the oldest child was 7, they were often allocated 3-bed properties when their children were even younger, and there were occasions when families with 2 children of the same sex were allocated 3-bed properties simply to get them out of expensive B&Bs or temporary accommodation.
Not true if a private sector tenant is living overcrowded conditions why dont they move, plus they would be high on the council list, and a landlord who lets a home out and is overcrowded would be breaking the law and can be taken to court for it.
What counts as "statutory overcrowding" is very different from what counts as overcrowded in terms of housing allocations.
Having a child of over 16 sharing a room with another child is considered overcrowded in allocation terms, but as long as the bedroom is large enough to be regarded as a double, it would not count as statutory overcrowding. If the younger child is under 10, they only count as half a person (!), that room need only be 90 sq ft.
Statutory overcrowding rules also count living rooms as rooms that can be used to be sleeping in.
The huge lack of adapted properties means that around 300,000 disabled people are stuck on waiting lists whilst living in unsafe and unsuitable accommodation.
That 300,000 figure is for disabled people on housing waiting lists.
You are assuming they are all living in unsitable or unsafe accommodation and all in need of adapted housing and are all stuck have been waiting for some time. When all those things are not known.
300,000 disabled people waiting for housing living in unsuitable homesDisability charity wants government to order building of easily adaptable ‘lifetime’ houses
The charity sent freedom of information requests to 305 councils and 151 authorities responded, saying they had a total of 162,910 disabled people on their housing waiting lists. Extrapolating the results across the country would mean over 300,000 disabled people are waiting for suitable accommodation.
300,000 disabled people on housing waiting lists
Leonoard Cheshire Disability.
We asked all 370 housing authorities in the UK how many disabled people are currently on their housing waiting list. 151 authorities provided a response, and we scaled this up on a pro-rata basis using the mean population percentage to reflect the entire country.
That 300,000 figure is for disabled people on housing waiting lists.
You are assuming they are all living in unsitable or unsafe accommodation and all in need of adapted housing. When that is not known.
If they were in suitable accommodation then they wouldn't be on a waiting list to move. That figure does not include those who, due to the acute shortage of suitable properties, are not even allowed to register on a waiting list even if they have been assessed as being in the most urgent need. The bottom line is that there is a huge shortage of suitable properties and seemingly no political will to do anything about it, especially for those of a younger age.
If they were in suitable accommodation then they wouldn't be on a waiting list to move.
Most British citizens are eligible to apply for social housing, and some EU and other nationals too, you do not need to be living in unsuitable or unsafe housing. And not all disabled people on the list are going to need adapted properties.
In South Oxfordshire where I live for example anyone can apply to join the register but some groups of people are ineligible to join and their application will be excluded.
Who will be excluded from the Housing Register?
Unless there are good reasons not to exclude them, the following groups of people will not be able to join the housing register:
•people who do not have a local connection to the district
•people who are owner occupiers
•people who have a joint income, or savings, or some combination that is above £60,000 in any one year
•people who are not fit to be a social housing tenant
•some people subject to immigration control who are not eligible to join the housing register
No mention of needing to be living in unsuitable housing.
Medical or welfare grounds.
Medical
•A severe medical award where it can be demonstrated that, due to an illness or disability, it is unacceptable for you to remain in your current home, or
•A moderate medical award when it can be demonstrated that due to an illness or disability you find living in your current home difficult and that remaining there will contribute to a deterioration in your health, or although you can manage at present, a move would be beneficial.
Welfare
•Infirmity due to old age
•The need to give or receive care
•Behavioural difficulties
•The need to recover from the effects or threats of violence or physical or emotional abuse
•Young people at risk
•A mental or physical disorder
•A physical or learning disability
•Financial hardship
Most British citizens are eligible to apply for social housing, and some EU and other nationals too, you do not need to be living in unsuitable or unsafe housing. And not all disabled people on the list are going to need adapted properties.
In South Oxfordshire where I live for example anyone can apply to join the register but some groups of people are ineligible to join and their application will be excluded.
Who will be excluded from the Housing Register?
Unless there are good reasons not to exclude them, the following groups of people will not be able to join the housing register:
•people who do not have a local connection to the district
•people who are owner occupiers
•people who have a joint income, or savings, or some combination that is above £60,000 in any one year
•people who are not fit to be a social housing tenant
•some people subject to immigration control who are not eligible to join the housing register
No mention of needing to be living in unsuitable housing.
If a disabled person is living in suitable accommodation then it is highly unlikely that they will be on a list to move given how little chance they have of moving.
I was assessed as being in the most urgent need of a fully adapted property over 4 years ago together with a powered chair. Because I did the "right thing" and slogged my guts out to buy my own house I am not allowed to even register for an adapted social housing bungalow, and I cannot have a powered chair in my house. Here you can only register if the HA expect to rehouse you within 3 months. In the first 6 months of the year there were none advertised by the HA. I have no other options and cannot even get adaptations for my house as it would still never meet my medical needs. In those 4 years having to slide around my house on my bum helped contribute to me losing my leg in the most horrific circumstances imaginable and huge costs to the NHS. I still have no safe means of getting around so my health will continue to deteriorate unnecessarily so you will have to forgive me for not getting into a pedantic argument. My point stands....there is a huge lack of adapted properties, an often unfair system of allocating those which do exist and no political will to do anything about it. I would say that the 300,000 figure is a conservative estimate of those who need suitable accommodation.
Medical or welfare grounds.
Medical
•A severe medical award where it can be demonstrated that, due to an illness or disability, it is unacceptable for you to remain in your current home, or
•A moderate medical award when it can be demonstrated that due to an illness or disability you find living in your current home difficult and that remaining there will contribute to a deterioration in your health, or although you can manage at present, a move would be beneficial.
Welfare
•Infirmity due to old age
•The need to give or receive care
•Behavioural difficulties
•The need to recover from the effects or threats of violence or physical or emotional abuse
•Young people at risk
•A mental or physical disorder
•A physical or learning disability
•Financial hardship
Well I am not on that list even though I have been assessed as being in the maximum possible medical need so I will take that figure with a huge pinch of salt.
I would say that the 300,000 figure is a conservative estimate of those who need suitable accommodation.
The 300,000 figure is a figure for the number of disabled people on housing waiting lists that has been extrapolated from replies by local authorities to a charity. Then transformed by the Guardian into something else by the addition of in unsuitable properties and implying they need adapted properties both of which are not known. And then used by you with the addition of unsafe implying they are in danger and stuck implying they have been waiting along time and will continue to be stuck waiting when those things are also not known.
Even the official 122,200 figure for medical and welfare is counting far more than just the disabled waiting for adapted properties and does not indicate how long they have been waiting. The number of disabled in unsafe and unsuitable accommodation who get the highest priority for moving and who are never the less stuck waiting I would expect is likely to be far lower than 122,200.
Well I am not on that list even though I have been assessed as being in the maximum possible medical need so I will take that figure with a huge pinch of salt.
I was assessed as being in the most urgent need of a fully adapted property over 4 years ago together with a powered chair. Because I did the "right thing" and slogged my guts out to buy my own house I am not allowed to even register for an adapted social housing bungalow, and I cannot have a powered chair in my house
Your problem would appear to be that you own your own home so do not qualify. How that is any indication that the official figures on waiting lists of those who do qualify are not to be trusted I do not know. Especially when official figuers seemed to be fine when they were presented by the charity and Guardian to be 300,000 disabled waiting, but not fine when it is 122,200 people with medical or welfare need to move. It is not like 122,200 is that small a number and not like a smaller number would be a bad thing.
You don't need evidence to confirm that families vary in size
That's not what I asked.
Many families possibly wouldn't but many families would. A couple with 2 children of the same sex under 16 or different sex under 10 would probably much rather rent a 2 bedroom social housing property than a 2 bed private. There's less opportunity for them to do so because there are social housing tenants under occupying these properties. A scheme that makes them consider changing tenure doesn't seem like a bad thing.
You do realise that there is a housing waiting list for social housing properties? and that they are also allocated on need so a family living in private rented accommodation with 2 children of the same sex under 16 would not even be considered for social housing,
You do have a very simplistic view of how this works,
do you think these people all live within a few streets of each other and it's as simple as just deciding to swap homes?
For example, where I live (and work) in the north east the number of spare room criminals outnumber the people in overcrowded conditions by something like three to one, so if we all gave up our homes and found smaller more expensive private properties to rent (because there are nowhere near enough social ones) making the Tax payer pay more for a one bedroomed property than they were for a two,
then 2 thirds of the vacated social houses would stand empty.
simple fact is, 2 children of the same sex under 16 WILL become 2 children of the same sex over 16 and one or both will at some stage leave home, and thereby make their parent/s spare room criminals by doing so,
Just as 2 children under ten of opposite sex will become two children over ten of the opposite sex and will then, by law, have to have separate rooms, so where two children of the same sex over 16 can still share a room, or one might move out,
2 children over ten of opposite sex can not share a room, and unless there is a big age gap it is unlikely that one will move out any time soon.
So punishing perfectly innocent people for the 'crime' of having a room that someone else has decided they suddenly don't need, is hardly an effective solution to the problem.
Families vary in size - they're not all large.
but this legislation is supposed to be punishing small families in order to help families who are living in overcrowded conditions, so obviously we are talking about larger families, a family which comprises of a single parent and 2 children is hardly a "large family" is it? and yet a single person who has lived in the same two bedroomed flat for decades, would be expected to move out to allow a single parent and 2 children to move in for a few years at the most.
How much is lots and lots?
What? you think I am making it up when I say there are lots of homes standing empty because of the Tory spare room fine?
Well, you did ask.
Bedroom tax sees Liverpool homes stand empty as they are too expensive to live in Hundreds of family-sized homes across Merseyside are still standing empty because the bedroom tax has made them too expensive to live in.
Earlier this year the Echo revealed there was a “dire shortage” of smaller flats at the same time as lots of larger vacant homes because residents were desperate to escape the under-occupancy charge.
Bedroom tax leaves properties standing empty, North East MPs claim
Cuts to housing benefit designed to drive tenants out of large homes have led to streets with scores of empty properties across the North East, MPs have claimed.
The shadow work and pensions secretary has claimed homes are being left empty because of the bedroom tax, and called for the controversial policy to be axed.
Speaking in parliament this week, Liam Byrne said three-bedroom homes ‘in places like the north east’ are being left vacant because the under-occupation penalty means families on housing benefit cannot afford the rent.
Rent arrears spiral as Bedroom Tax hits the vulnerable in MerseysideRent arrears have increased by £2.2m in Merseyside, a survey of social landlords, including Cobalt Housing, has found.
Merseyside housing associations – working together to assess the impact of Government welfare reforms – have released new figures today on the six month anniversary of the introduction of the benefit changes.
They show spiralling rent arrears – as vulnerable tenants struggle to make up the shortfall as a result of benefit cuts – as well as sharp increases in the number of empty properties and the time it takes to re-let homes when they become vacant.
Which councils and housing associations? What does considering mean? Is considering a full proposal presented to council? or is it simply the musings of a councilor?
Affordable homes facing demolition because of bedroom tax
According to the latest data, arrears in Merseyside have increased by £2.2m when compared to the same period in 2012. This loss of income could help build more than 125 houses in the region, which in turn would create 280 jobs or have an economic impact of over £10.5m, according to the National Housing Federation
Three-bedroom homes are being condemned to demolition by housing associations because the coalition's bedroom tax has made them too expensive for tenants to live in, the Observer can reveal.
People can’t even move to smaller homes to avoid the Bedroom Tax because there aren’t enough smaller properties.
In a letter to Alison McGovern, the Labour MP for Wirral South, Magenta says one such block of flats will be "emptied with a view to subsequent demolition" because of the inability to let them out, sell them or keep up with the costs of keeping them unlived in.
Coast and Country Housing, a housing association in north-east England that has 10,190 homes, has also reported a huge increase in the number of empty homes and announced that demolitions are now feasible.
Wigan and Leigh Housing, which manages 22,576 homes on behalf of Wigan council in Greater Manchester, concurred that demolishing their unlettable larger properties may prove to be the most cost-effective step
Providers report rise in voids as they struggle to let larger properties
Landlords could demolish bedroom-taxed homes
You haven't defined anything - how can anything be the result of anything?
I don't actually need to "define" anything as I tend to let the experts do that for me, as in the links above,
This is good if it means that a family get a 2 bed social property. If that happens they are paying a social rent and not the private rent of a 2 bed.
4% of the hundreds of thousands of people being punished actually being able to find a smaller property is your idea of "good" I wonder what your idea of a total and utter failure, not to mention a complete disaster for those affected would be?
how many of those 4% who have managed to move, do you think have allowed a family living in a private rented property to actually move into social housing? and do you seriously think that this justifies the stress and misery inflicted on hundreds of thousands of other people?
Hopefully the rent for a 2 bed property is saved.
You are going to have to explain that one, a family of 3 paying the full rent on a one bedroomed private flat, move into a 2 bedroomed social housing flat and pay the far cheaper rent in full for that property.
meanwhile the hard working but low paid couple who had been claiming housing benefit for the 2 bedroomed social housing flat and had been under the governments punishment for being low paid, now move into the one bedroomed private flat where they are able to claim the FULL amount of the more expensive rent in housing benefit?
I am at a loss to see how that saves any money for the tax payers.
It's unlikely because the spare bed genocide is not pervasive enough.
The private rental market was strong before the spare bed holocaust and was strong after the spare bed holacaust - I doubt Tory landlords were replying on it.
You'll be surprised. A lot of people who aren't fortunate enough to have a council tenancy would give there right arm to be subjected to spare bed torture.
No problem at all
I am happy that my use of the factual phrase "the spare room fine or punishment" which is EXACTLY what a "penalty" is, amuses you so much, would you like the figures for the number of people who have committed suicide and claimed it as the reason? that's worth a bit of a chortle too, as IDS demonstrated,
"Caring Conservatives" eh? I wonder what happened to that phrase?
Rent arrears spiral as Bedroom Tax hits the vulnerable in MerseysideRent arrears have increased by £2.2m in Merseyside,
That in part I expect is down to Merseyside originally having a publicly stated policy that they would not evict anyone who got in to rent arrears due to the bedroom tax. In effect a green light to tenants to not make up the shortfall in their rents. And then they then seek to make political capital out of the level of rent arreas they end up with.
Comments
Has it? must say that this is news to me, because when I was renting a private 2 bedroomed house in 2006 I certainly wasnt expected to pay "extra" for a 'spare bedroom'
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN04957/the-reform-of-housing-benefit-local-housing-allowance-for-tenants-in-private-rented-housing
When I moved into the house in 2006/7 I was briefly unemployed, and claimed housing benefit, however, I became employed in a temporary job which meant my claim was stopped and as I was employed for more than 13 weeks when the job ended AFTER the LHA was introduced and I made a new housing benefit claim I was charged a small amount because the rent on the property was deemed too high, it had nothing at all to do with the number of rooms bed or otherwise.
and as clearly indicated the LHA did NOT apply to tenants who were already living in the rented property when the change was introduced, unlike the Tories vile spare room crime which was retrospective.
What did they expect the spare room criminals who already had a "spare" room to do?
saw off the spare room? fill it with concrete? the law itself is a vile and cruel law but it's made FAR more cruel and unjust by the fact that it was retrospective.
You don't need evidence to confirm that families vary in size
Many families possibly wouldn't but many families would. A couple with 2 children of the same sex under 16 or different sex under 10 would probably much rather rent a 2 bedroom social housing property than a 2 bed private. There's less opportunity for them to do so because there are social housing tenants under occupying these properties. A scheme that makes them consider changing tenure doesn't seem like a bad thing.
OK
Families vary in size - they're not all large.
How much is lots and lots?
Which councils and housing associations? What does considering mean? Is considering a full proposal presented to council? or is it simply the musings of a councilor?
You haven't defined anything - how can anything be the result of anything?
This is good if it means that a family get a 2 bed social property. If that happens they are paying a social rent and not the private rent of a 2 bed.
Hopefully the rent for a 2 bed property is saved.
It's unlikely because the spare bed genocide is not pervasive enough.
The private rental market was strong before the spare bed holocaust and was strong after the spare bed holacaust - I doubt Tory landlords were replying on it.
You'll be surprised. A lot of people who aren't fortunate enough to have a council tenancy would give there right arm to be subjected to spare bed torture.
I oppose BNP's fascist, rascist ideology - i couldn't give a fig what they think of spare bed crime
Me too
I don't need to provide any links - what do I need to provide a link for?
No problem at all
Smaller properties are cheaper. Big properties are more expensive, so people with low incomes save money by compromising on their accommodation.
They would certainly be a higher priority but lower priority than others. What is not in doubt is that social accommodation is scarce resource. They could be high up the list but still face a long wait.
It may be illegal - I'm not sure. I'm sure that people, families live in overcrowded conditions. Councils themselves house people in overcrowded conditions. If a couple had a child and outgrew their current residence they would immediately be overcrowded.
One important point is alot of the people effected are in adapted homes, and could not even move into the private sector, because of the adaptions that would not be in the private sector homes.
You forget there was a housing benefit scheme before LHA.
That housing benefit scheme required local authorities to refer the rents to the Rent Office (now the VOA) for an assessment
The Rent Office would assess the rent accordance to the number of bedrooms that person needed. A single person living in a 2 bedroom property would receive a rent assessment of a person based in a 1 bedroom property and no more.
The change with LHA was to remove the requirement to refer to the rent officer.
Agreed and I think it's fair to exempt these people.
Makes one wonder how on earth they ever sell 3-4 bedrooms houses. You'd think people would be terrified that if sonny moved out, they'd never be able to afford the mortgage and would be stranded there.
For private rented all rooms are counted as rooms people can sleep in not just bedrooms. For Private Rental overcrowding is calculating the permitted number of people for a dwelling in one of two ways. The lower number thus calculated is the permitted number for the dwelling.
One test is based on the number of living rooms in the dwelling (disregarding rooms of less than 50 square feet, rooms containing a toilet, and the kitchen):
one room = two persons
two rooms = three persons
three rooms = five persons
four rooms = seven and a half persons
five rooms or more = ten persons plus two for each room in excess of five rooms.
The other test is based on floor areas of each room size:
less than 50 square feet = no-one
50 to less than 70 square feet = half a person
70 to less than 90 square feet = one person
90 to less than 110 square feet = one and a half persons
110 square feet or larger = two persons.
Children under 1 do not count
Children under 10 count as half a person
Two people of the opposite sex can only share if under 10 or if a married or cohabiting couple.
Overcrowding in private rented is permitted if due to natural growth (such as a child reaching one of the specified ages, temporary (eg if a member of your family comes to live in your home for a short-time), licensed overcrowding where the council has given permission.
For social rented the bedroom standard counts bedrooms.
A seperate bedroom for each:
married or cohabiting couple
adult aged 21 years or more
pair of adolescents aged 10-20 years of the same sex
pair of children aged under 10 years regardless of sex
Even if a household is overcrowded according to the bedroom standard, this will not give rise to an automatic duty on the local authority to rehouse the household in larger accommodation.
Under the private rental overcrowding rules my home can house upto 16 people or more if the bathrooms and kitchen and hall count. Under the social housing bedroom standard my home can house upto 8 people or as few as 4 due to having 4 bedrooms.
Exactly. Adapted homes pretty much do not exist in the private rental sector. There have not been any in the 4+ years that I have been looking, neither are there any adapted 1 bedroom properties so those in the 2 bed properties have no other option.
The problems in the social housing sector are down to politicians from successive governments, not those hit by the "bedroom tax". The huge lack of adapted properties means that around 300,000 disabled people are stuck on waiting lists whilst living in unsafe and unsuitable accommodation. Some, who have been assessed as being in the most urgent need are not even allowed to register, leaving very little chance of ever getting safe accommodation.
I asked my local Tory and Labour candidates what their party would to do to address this problem. The Labour mp chose to waffle on about how Andy Burnham would merge social and NHS care, and the Tory did not even attempt to answer, so I think we can safely say that they plan on doing nothing.
So if I was on benefits I would be paying tax.
That's sounds daft. Why not just reduce the benefits a bit ?
I think this will finally put the issue to bed once and for all:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/590/contents/made
Since 1989, when private tenancies were deregulated to assured shorthold, housing benefit for private tenants has been restricted according to the amount of bedrooms a person is entitled to.
You call family parasites or those who are disabled that fur example
In many areas (including the one where I live) there has historically been a shortage of 2-bed properties. Before the "bedroom tax", their allocations policy was that families with 2 children of different sexes would be entitled to a 3 bedroom property when the oldest child was 7, they were often allocated 3-bed properties when their children were even younger, and there were occasions when families with 2 children of the same sex were allocated 3-bed properties simply to get them out of expensive B&Bs or temporary accommodation.
If you did that here, your rent, and therefore the cost to the taxpayer, would go up from about £100 pw to at least £150.
What counts as "statutory overcrowding" is very different from what counts as overcrowded in terms of housing allocations.
Having a child of over 16 sharing a room with another child is considered overcrowded in allocation terms, but as long as the bedroom is large enough to be regarded as a double, it would not count as statutory overcrowding. If the younger child is under 10, they only count as half a person (!), that room need only be 90 sq ft.
Statutory overcrowding rules also count living rooms as rooms that can be used to be sleeping in.
You are assuming they are all living in unsitable or unsafe accommodation and all in need of adapted housing and are all stuck have been waiting for some time. When all those things are not known.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/01/300000-disabled-people-waiting-on-housing-living-unsuitable-homes
The guardian makes the leap that they are all lving in unsuitable accomodation when that is unknown and implies they need adapted properties when that is also not known. http://www.leonardcheshire.org/sites/default/files/no-place-like-home-leonard-cheshire-disabiltiy.pdf
If they were in suitable accommodation then they wouldn't be on a waiting list to move. That figure does not include those who, due to the acute shortage of suitable properties, are not even allowed to register on a waiting list even if they have been assessed as being in the most urgent need. The bottom line is that there is a huge shortage of suitable properties and seemingly no political will to do anything about it, especially for those of a younger age.
In South Oxfordshire where I live for example anyone can apply to join the register but some groups of people are ineligible to join and their application will be excluded.
Who will be excluded from the Housing Register?
Unless there are good reasons not to exclude them, the following groups of people will not be able to join the housing register:
•people who do not have a local connection to the district
•people who are owner occupiers
•people who have a joint income, or savings, or some combination that is above £60,000 in any one year
•people who are not fit to be a social housing tenant
•some people subject to immigration control who are not eligible to join the housing register
No mention of needing to be living in unsuitable housing.
Medical or welfare grounds.
Medical
•A severe medical award where it can be demonstrated that, due to an illness or disability, it is unacceptable for you to remain in your current home, or
•A moderate medical award when it can be demonstrated that due to an illness or disability you find living in your current home difficult and that remaining there will contribute to a deterioration in your health, or although you can manage at present, a move would be beneficial.
Welfare
•Infirmity due to old age
•The need to give or receive care
•Behavioural difficulties
•The need to recover from the effects or threats of violence or physical or emotional abuse
•Young people at risk
•A mental or physical disorder
•A physical or learning disability
•Financial hardship
If a disabled person is living in suitable accommodation then it is highly unlikely that they will be on a list to move given how little chance they have of moving.
I was assessed as being in the most urgent need of a fully adapted property over 4 years ago together with a powered chair. Because I did the "right thing" and slogged my guts out to buy my own house I am not allowed to even register for an adapted social housing bungalow, and I cannot have a powered chair in my house. Here you can only register if the HA expect to rehouse you within 3 months. In the first 6 months of the year there were none advertised by the HA. I have no other options and cannot even get adaptations for my house as it would still never meet my medical needs. In those 4 years having to slide around my house on my bum helped contribute to me losing my leg in the most horrific circumstances imaginable and huge costs to the NHS. I still have no safe means of getting around so my health will continue to deteriorate unnecessarily so you will have to forgive me for not getting into a pedantic argument. My point stands....there is a huge lack of adapted properties, an often unfair system of allocating those which do exist and no political will to do anything about it. I would say that the 300,000 figure is a conservative estimate of those who need suitable accommodation.
Well I am not on that list even though I have been assessed as being in the maximum possible medical need so I will take that figure with a huge pinch of salt.
http://www.carolinelucas.com/latest/the-bedroom-tax-callous-nasty-and-counter-productive
Even the official 122,200 figure for medical and welfare is counting far more than just the disabled waiting for adapted properties and does not indicate how long they have been waiting. The number of disabled in unsafe and unsuitable accommodation who get the highest priority for moving and who are never the less stuck waiting I would expect is likely to be far lower than 122,200.
Your problem would appear to be that you own your own home so do not qualify. How that is any indication that the official figures on waiting lists of those who do qualify are not to be trusted I do not know. Especially when official figuers seemed to be fine when they were presented by the charity and Guardian to be 300,000 disabled waiting, but not fine when it is 122,200 people with medical or welfare need to move. It is not like 122,200 is that small a number and not like a smaller number would be a bad thing.
You do realise that there is a housing waiting list for social housing properties? and that they are also allocated on need so a family living in private rented accommodation with 2 children of the same sex under 16 would not even be considered for social housing,
You do have a very simplistic view of how this works,
do you think these people all live within a few streets of each other and it's as simple as just deciding to swap homes?
For example, where I live (and work) in the north east the number of spare room criminals outnumber the people in overcrowded conditions by something like three to one, so if we all gave up our homes and found smaller more expensive private properties to rent (because there are nowhere near enough social ones) making the Tax payer pay more for a one bedroomed property than they were for a two,
then 2 thirds of the vacated social houses would stand empty.
simple fact is, 2 children of the same sex under 16 WILL become 2 children of the same sex over 16 and one or both will at some stage leave home, and thereby make their parent/s spare room criminals by doing so,
Just as 2 children under ten of opposite sex will become two children over ten of the opposite sex and will then, by law, have to have separate rooms, so where two children of the same sex over 16 can still share a room, or one might move out,
2 children over ten of opposite sex can not share a room, and unless there is a big age gap it is unlikely that one will move out any time soon.
So punishing perfectly innocent people for the 'crime' of having a room that someone else has decided they suddenly don't need, is hardly an effective solution to the problem.
but this legislation is supposed to be punishing small families in order to help families who are living in overcrowded conditions, so obviously we are talking about larger families, a family which comprises of a single parent and 2 children is hardly a "large family" is it? and yet a single person who has lived in the same two bedroomed flat for decades, would be expected to move out to allow a single parent and 2 children to move in for a few years at the most.
What? you think I am making it up when I say there are lots of homes standing empty because of the Tory spare room fine?
Well, you did ask.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/bedroom-tax-sees-liverpool-homes-8073137 http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/bedroom-tax-leaves-properties-standing-6283750
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/homes-standing-empty-because-of-bedroom-tax/6527055.article and then there is the tragedy of people facing eviction because they can't afford to pay for the difference and they can't find anywhere smaller to live.
http://www.cobalthousing.org.uk/2013/10/rent-arrears-spiral-as-bedroom-tax-hits-the-vulnerable-in-merseyside/ http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/10/bedrooom-tax-affordable-homes-face-demolition
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-could-see-homes-2051700
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/landlords-could-demolish-bedroom-taxed-homes/6527632.article I don't actually need to "define" anything as I tend to let the experts do that for me, as in the links above,
4% of the hundreds of thousands of people being punished actually being able to find a smaller property is your idea of "good" I wonder what your idea of a total and utter failure, not to mention a complete disaster for those affected would be?
how many of those 4% who have managed to move, do you think have allowed a family living in a private rented property to actually move into social housing? and do you seriously think that this justifies the stress and misery inflicted on hundreds of thousands of other people? You are going to have to explain that one, a family of 3 paying the full rent on a one bedroomed private flat, move into a 2 bedroomed social housing flat and pay the far cheaper rent in full for that property.
meanwhile the hard working but low paid couple who had been claiming housing benefit for the 2 bedroomed social housing flat and had been under the governments punishment for being low paid, now move into the one bedroomed private flat where they are able to claim the FULL amount of the more expensive rent in housing benefit?
I am at a loss to see how that saves any money for the tax payers.
I am happy that my use of the factual phrase "the spare room fine or punishment" which is EXACTLY what a "penalty" is, amuses you so much, would you like the figures for the number of people who have committed suicide and claimed it as the reason? that's worth a bit of a chortle too, as IDS demonstrated,
"Caring Conservatives" eh? I wonder what happened to that phrase?