If the government has announced a policy to help people "right size" where they lived then it would have been a good policy that would have succeeded in it's declared aim of reducing over & under crowding which wouldn't have saved much in Housing Benefit.
But they didn't and it's just an excuse to cut the benefits bill.
Firstly it's not a ha that sells off their houses, we don't have a right to buy, just a lump sum if we leave, and secondly my brother's are the most selfish useless beings on this earth, one could afford to get a mortgage and let dad live there but is too concerned with moving 200 miles away for no real reason except that the others live there, so it's just me with him, I can't buy anywhere.
I didn't get the bit in bold. I didn't mention about a Housing Association selling your dads house so I'm not sure what you meant by the bit in bold.
If the right to buy the house is open to your dad then it would make sense to have it "bought" and immediately put it on the market, and if you can sell it, then you should have plenty left over to not just buy a small place for your dad outright but left over money too I would have thought. No one in your family not thought of that/interested in that?
Where, in a garden attached to his own home where he can play in safety, or on an allotment?
I do not understand why my living arrangements bother you. We are happy, we'd like a garden but its a luxury we cannot afford at the moment so we made provisions and provide our son with light, exercise and outdoor education.
If the government has announced a policy to help people "right size" where they lived then it would have been a good policy that would have succeeded in it's declared aim of reducing over & under crowding which wouldn't have saved much in Housing Benefit.
But they didn't and it's just an excuse to cut the benefits bill.
i would be surprised if it goes unchallenged in court.
I don't get the agenda, by trying to cut the benefits bill they are forcing people into poverty and as a society surel we have a duty to pick up the tab. It's such a short sighted solution.
I don't get the agenda, by trying to cut the benefits bill they are forcing people into poverty and as a society surel we have a duty to pick up the tab. It's such a short sighted solution.
I honestly hope it is challenged.
Apart from trying to re-align who's in what council property suitable for people's needs, its also about cutting the welfare bill that is far to big and that imo Gordon Brown deliberatly increased as a blatant political bribe to get people to vote for him/Labour.
The fact that the Universal Credit will start its long awaited introduction in October on top of all the other changes on welfare is proof that the Government thinks this too.
Apart from trying to re-align who's in what council property suitable for people's needs, its also about cutting the welfare bill that is far to big and that imo Gordon Brown deliberatly increased as a blatant political bribe to get people to vote for him/Labour.
The fact that the Universal Credit will start its long awaited introduction in October on top of all the other changes on welfare is proof that the Government thinks this too.
If that is the case the build more affordable rentals, and deal with greedy private landlord, who are making the most money out of HB, by building homes it would drop the HB bill because private rent is running at the double of council rents
If that is the case the build more affordable rentals, and deal with greedy private landlord, who are making the most money out of HB, by building homes it would drop the HB bill because private rent is running at the double of council rents
If it was up to me council homes would never have been sold off in the first place and I certainly would have replaced the homes sold ages ago too.
All that needed to be done was to facilitate, with moving grants, people wanting to move into fewer bedroomed properties.
And a system that helped those to do that via exchanges, and the new build availablity.
Many want to have less flaming HEATING bills. I know people who have 'downsized' this way just pragmatically.
The 'bedroom' tax is just brutal and stupid, it takes little account of real social need. It's inflexible and unworkable.
It's also STUPID. It assumes no importance to community, to family, to the social glue we need to run any society, and it is heartless in that it makes people, who may have paid rent far beyond the value of the property, even though they have loved and improved it, feel that their contribution and effort is a worthless thing and they must live in fear of poverty and eviction.
If that is the case the build more affordable rentals, and deal with greedy private landlord, who are making the most money out of HB, by building homes it would drop the HB bill because private rent is running at the double of council rents
Yes, true but whose going to pay for all of those new properties to be built. Local authorities are having trouble covering essential services at the moment, never mind investing in a building programme.
Private rent is high because property has been high. No bodies going to buy a house or flat to let and then take less in rent than it costs them for their mortgage and maintenance. Rent caps may well be a good idea but they'll need to be introduced properly and probably subsidised for a period of time. Which brings us back to the age old problem, who is going to pay for it? I'm happy to pay taxes to help those less fortunate than me, I'm happy for families, the disabled and older people to get housing that I wouldn't have much of a chance at, it seems only fair. But I'm not keen on paying extra so that someone can keep a spare room that they don't need and/or won't pay a bit extra for themselves. Sorry if that sounds selfish, but my just above minimum wage doesn't go that far.
We have the age old problem of everyone wanting a bigger piece of the cake and no one wanting to pay for it.
Yes, true but whose going to pay for all of those new properties to be built. Local authorities are having trouble covering essential services at the moment, never mind investing in a building programme.
Private rent is high because property has been high. No bodies going to buy a house or flat to let and then take less in rent than it costs them for their mortgage and maintenance. Rent caps may well be a good idea but they'll need to be introduced properly and probably subsidised for a period of time. Which brings us back to the age old problem, who is going to pay for it? I'm happy to pay taxes to help those less fortunate than me, I'm happy for families, the disabled and older people to get housing that I wouldn't have much of a chance at, it seems only fair. But I'm not keen on paying extra so that someone can keep a spare room that they don't need and/or won't pay a bit extra for themselves. Sorry if that sounds selfish, but my just above minimum wage doesn't go that far.
We have the age old problem of everyone wanting a bigger piece of the cake and no one wanting to pay for it.
Council and HA properties though are often old and built and paid for, the rent is gravy, HA pay extra for maintenance.
It's not a question of 'oh they pay more because'. Council and HA are just getting more profit.
This policy doesn't cut the benefits bill.i live in a 3 bed housing association house the rent is £76 a week.housing benefit pay this but I'm under occupied by 2 rooms,so a reduction of 25% roughly £19.96 is what I will have to pay.as I said earlier on this thread a mutual exchange is impossible,housing list is years and years of wait so,I have an option of private let.i seen a 1 bed flat for rent today £100 per week.if I move into this housing benefit will pay all my rent (as I'm not under occupying) that's £24 more than my rent at the moment,and so increasing the benefits bill.where is the sense in that
"Foster carers and families of armed services personnel will be exempt from controversial changes to housing benefit, ministers have said."
They're successfully chipping away at it. Soon those who 'need' a room for their pet will be in with a chance.;)
Actually, I agree with the foster carer exemption. The one granted for those with family members in the armed forces is more arguable but I suspect that that's political. It looks good, like always leaving pensioners out of the cuts.
This policy doesn't cut the benefits bill.i live in a 3 bed housing association house the rent is £76 a week.housing benefit pay this but I'm under occupied by 2 rooms,so a reduction of 25% roughly £19.96 is what I will have to pay.as I said earlier on this thread a mutual exchange is impossible,housing list is years and years of wait so,I have an option of private let.i seen a 1 bed flat for rent today £100 per week.if I move into this housing benefit will pay all my rent (as I'm not under occupying) that's £24 more than my rent at the moment,and so increasing the benefits bill.where is the sense in that
With 3 Million people waiting to be transferred to something bigger, why is a mutual exhange impossible?
With 3 Million people waiting to be transferred to something bigger, why is a mutual exhange impossible?
Like I said earlier on the thread,I'm in a 3 bed and under my h/a rules can only exchange to what I need which is a 1 bed. Also the person who I would exchange with would have to qualify for a 3 bed,which means I would have to find someone in a 1 bed with either 2 children over age 10 or 3 children.how many people do you know ( mum,dad and 3 kids )in a 1 bed cause I don't know any.my other options are go on the housing register and your talking 12 years wait for a 1 bed or pay up or move to a private sector which would cost more
Like I said earlier on the thread,I'm in a 3 bed and under my h/a rules can only exchange to what I need which is a 1 bed. Also the person who I would exchange with would have to qualify for a 3 bed,which means I would have to find someone in a 1 bed with either 2 children over age 10 or 3 children.how many people do you know ( mum,dad and 3 kids )in a 1 bed cause I don't know any.my other options are go on the housing register and your talking 12 years wait for a 1 bed or pay up or move to a private sector which would cost more
There may be some currently in two bedroom though. Wouldn't it make more sense and be cheaper for you?
Why does it have to be a direct swop anyway? I am sure with some application and common sense the right homes could be matched for many who needed to change. The alternative of saying 'oh well, can't be done we'll just leave things as they are' seems very dismissive to me. Or is it more a case of some tenants *saying that they're happy to move when really they're not.
*Obviously, I'm not saying that that applies to Life of grime.
"Foster carers and families of armed services personnel will be exempt from controversial changes to housing benefit, ministers have said."
They're successfully chipping away at it. Soon those who 'need' a room for their pet will be in with a chance.;)
Actually, I agree with the foster carer exemption. The one granted for those with family members in the armed forces is more arguable but I suspect that that's political. It looks good, like always leaving pensioners out of the cuts.
And the armed forces, they cannot always house the size of the property the army allocate.
If a single person in a 1 bedroom property claiming HB
became ill and slept in the sitting room permanently
(making it their bedroom as some people do for convenience)
does that mean they have a spare bedroom and either have to pay the bedroom tax or move into a bedsit?
And the armed forces, they cannot always house the size of the property the army allocate.
No, but this a not about those with young families leaving the military. It's aimed at parents those in the services whose adult children live at home when on leave. From the BBC link
"Families with adult children serving in the armed forces will also be exempt from the changes, even when on overseas deployment. They will be treated as if they were continuing to live at home."
If a single person in a 1 bedroom property claiming HB
became ill and slept in the sitting room permanently
(making it their bedroom as some people do for convenience)
does that mean they have a spare bedroom and either have to pay the bedroom tax or move into a bedsit?
Nope, the property is still classed as one bedroomed and they'd still get enough housing benefit to cover one bedroom (if they are over 35). It's irrelevant what they do with each room. That said, I have heard of so called dining rooms being re-classed as bedrooms.
No, but this a not about those with young families leaving the military. It's aimed at parents those in the services whose adult children live at home when on leave. From the BBC link
"Families with adult children serving in the armed forces will also be exempt from the changes, even when on overseas deployment. They will be treated as if they were continuing to live at home."
It shouldn't be just for these though either. There are young single people who work away on temporary contracts (you know, trying to actually WORK) should they have no 'base'?
I'm relieved to see that those with children in university are protected now too.
I was really angry when I thought that a base for my child next year, when she will be with me for a lot of the year, and should always have a place to return to, might be in jeapourdy should I fall ill again.:(
And what about those struggling adult children who lose their jobs and end up coming home?
No, but this a not about those with young families leaving the military. It's aimed at parents those in the services whose adult children live at home when on leave. From the BBC link
"Families with adult children serving in the armed forces will also be exempt from the changes, even when on overseas deployment. They will be treated as if they were continuing to live at home."
Comments
But they didn't and it's just an excuse to cut the benefits bill.
I didn't get the bit in bold. I didn't mention about a Housing Association selling your dads house so I'm not sure what you meant by the bit in bold.
If the right to buy the house is open to your dad then it would make sense to have it "bought" and immediately put it on the market, and if you can sell it, then you should have plenty left over to not just buy a small place for your dad outright but left over money too I would have thought. No one in your family not thought of that/interested in that?
will start panicking about it tomorrow as i'm usually the level headed sort of bloke
I do not understand why my living arrangements bother you. We are happy, we'd like a garden but its a luxury we cannot afford at the moment so we made provisions and provide our son with light, exercise and outdoor education.
Agreed and despicable!
I don't get the agenda, by trying to cut the benefits bill they are forcing people into poverty and as a society surel we have a duty to pick up the tab. It's such a short sighted solution.
I honestly hope it is challenged.
Apart from trying to re-align who's in what council property suitable for people's needs, its also about cutting the welfare bill that is far to big and that imo Gordon Brown deliberatly increased as a blatant political bribe to get people to vote for him/Labour.
The fact that the Universal Credit will start its long awaited introduction in October on top of all the other changes on welfare is proof that the Government thinks this too.
If that is the case the build more affordable rentals, and deal with greedy private landlord, who are making the most money out of HB, by building homes it would drop the HB bill because private rent is running at the double of council rents
If it was up to me council homes would never have been sold off in the first place and I certainly would have replaced the homes sold ages ago too.
And a system that helped those to do that via exchanges, and the new build availablity.
Many want to have less flaming HEATING bills. I know people who have 'downsized' this way just pragmatically.
The 'bedroom' tax is just brutal and stupid, it takes little account of real social need. It's inflexible and unworkable.
It's also STUPID. It assumes no importance to community, to family, to the social glue we need to run any society, and it is heartless in that it makes people, who may have paid rent far beyond the value of the property, even though they have loved and improved it, feel that their contribution and effort is a worthless thing and they must live in fear of poverty and eviction.
Way to go.
Yes, true but whose going to pay for all of those new properties to be built. Local authorities are having trouble covering essential services at the moment, never mind investing in a building programme.
Private rent is high because property has been high. No bodies going to buy a house or flat to let and then take less in rent than it costs them for their mortgage and maintenance. Rent caps may well be a good idea but they'll need to be introduced properly and probably subsidised for a period of time. Which brings us back to the age old problem, who is going to pay for it? I'm happy to pay taxes to help those less fortunate than me, I'm happy for families, the disabled and older people to get housing that I wouldn't have much of a chance at, it seems only fair. But I'm not keen on paying extra so that someone can keep a spare room that they don't need and/or won't pay a bit extra for themselves. Sorry if that sounds selfish, but my just above minimum wage doesn't go that far.
We have the age old problem of everyone wanting a bigger piece of the cake and no one wanting to pay for it.
Council and HA properties though are often old and built and paid for, the rent is gravy, HA pay extra for maintenance.
It's not a question of 'oh they pay more because'. Council and HA are just getting more profit.
And this is true of a lot of private rentals too.
"Foster carers and families of armed services personnel will be exempt from controversial changes to housing benefit, ministers have said."
They're successfully chipping away at it. Soon those who 'need' a room for their pet will be in with a chance.;)
Actually, I agree with the foster carer exemption. The one granted for those with family members in the armed forces is more arguable but I suspect that that's political. It looks good, like always leaving pensioners out of the cuts.
With 3 Million people waiting to be transferred to something bigger, why is a mutual exhange impossible?
Like I said earlier on the thread,I'm in a 3 bed and under my h/a rules can only exchange to what I need which is a 1 bed. Also the person who I would exchange with would have to qualify for a 3 bed,which means I would have to find someone in a 1 bed with either 2 children over age 10 or 3 children.how many people do you know ( mum,dad and 3 kids )in a 1 bed cause I don't know any.my other options are go on the housing register and your talking 12 years wait for a 1 bed or pay up or move to a private sector which would cost more
There may be some currently in two bedroom though. Wouldn't it make more sense and be cheaper for you?
Why does it have to be a direct swop anyway? I am sure with some application and common sense the right homes could be matched for many who needed to change. The alternative of saying 'oh well, can't be done we'll just leave things as they are' seems very dismissive to me. Or is it more a case of some tenants *saying that they're happy to move when really they're not.
*Obviously, I'm not saying that that applies to Life of grime.
And the armed forces, they cannot always house the size of the property the army allocate.
became ill and slept in the sitting room permanently
(making it their bedroom as some people do for convenience)
does that mean they have a spare bedroom and either have to pay the bedroom tax or move into a bedsit?
No, but this a not about those with young families leaving the military. It's aimed at parents those in the services whose adult children live at home when on leave. From the BBC link
"Families with adult children serving in the armed forces will also be exempt from the changes, even when on overseas deployment. They will be treated as if they were continuing to live at home."
Nope, the property is still classed as one bedroomed and they'd still get enough housing benefit to cover one bedroom (if they are over 35). It's irrelevant what they do with each room. That said, I have heard of so called dining rooms being re-classed as bedrooms.
It shouldn't be just for these though either. There are young single people who work away on temporary contracts (you know, trying to actually WORK) should they have no 'base'?
I'm relieved to see that those with children in university are protected now too.
I was really angry when I thought that a base for my child next year, when she will be with me for a lot of the year, and should always have a place to return to, might be in jeapourdy should I fall ill again.:(
And what about those struggling adult children who lose their jobs and end up coming home?
This whole thing is stupid.
Good! I'm glad.