The bedroom tax

[John]

Sally is unemployed, and liives in a two bedroom house provided by her
local housing association. her rent is £100 a week paid for by
housing benefits.

From April Sally will have to pay £14 a week from her JSA, leaving her
with just £57.70 to live on. Sally is trying to get a job, but
prospects are extremely grim.

She has asked both the Council and the Housing Association if they can
move her but there is an acute shortage of 1 bedroom accomodation
available.

What legal challenges would be available for claimants like Sally, or
is the above "bedroom tax" watertight?
--
John

[Roland Perry]

In message <pioui8ldipkbv094r...@4ax.com>, at 14:35:01 on
Thu, 28 Feb 2013, John <focus594...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

It's not a "bedroom tax" it's a consequence of living in a house deemed
larger than you need. But I have a lot of sympathy for people unable to
find "small enough" accommodation, even if they've tried.

A practical solution might be to share a 2-bed with someone else -
that's what I did the first three places I lived (in the four years
after leaving Uni).
--
Roland Perry

[tim.....]

"John" <focus594...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pioui8ldipkbv094r...@4ax.com...

None

best option - take in a lodger

tim

[steve robinson]

Take in a lodger, look into private rentals

[Janet]

In article <pioui8ldipkbv094r...@4ax.com>, focus594-
rem...@yahoo.co.uk says...

>
> Sally is unemployed, and liives in a two bedroom house provided by her
> local housing association. her rent is £100 a week paid for by
> housing benefits.
>
> From April Sally will have to pay £14 a week from her JSA, leaving her
> with just £57.70 to live on. Sally is trying to get a job, but
> prospects are extremely grim.

Can Sally hold a mop and duster? Sally only needs casual work 2 or 3
hours or one morning a week to earn enough to cover the shortfall and
her busfare.


Janet.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"John" <focus594...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pioui8ldipkbv094r...@4ax.com...

When I was in a scrape like this (after badly breaking both ankles) I took a
lodger.

[Andy Champ]

Followup question: What would happen if Sally got a lodger?

Andy

[GB]

The lodger would probably pay £100/week - paid for by housing benefit. :)

[Robin Bignall]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:10:02 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

That's OK if you're in your twenties. It seems to me that Sally
probably had little or no choice in what she was given when she applied
to the housing association, and now she's penalised for something that
might be totally out of her control, no one-bedroom accommodation being
available.
Some lodgers are more trouble than they're worth, particularly at that
end of the market.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England

[GB]

On 28/02/2013 20:45, Robin Bignall wrote:
>
> That's OK if you're in your twenties. It seems to me that Sally
> probably had little or no choice in what she was given when she applied
> to the housing association, and now she's penalised for something that
> might be totally out of her control, no one-bedroom accommodation being
> available.
> Some lodgers are more trouble than they're worth, particularly at that
> end of the market.
>

If she vets her lodger carefully, there should be no problem.

[Serena Blanchflower]

Do Housing Association rental agreements generally allow people to
take in lodgers? I remember hearing of one person recently who
challenged one of the cabinet about this and was advised to get a
lodger. Her reply (ignored by the politician) was that her tenancy
didn't permit it. I don't know how common that is though.

Assuming Sally's tenancy does allow her to take a lodger, given that
she's on means tested benefits, would she be allowed to keep any of
the rent the lodger paid her, or would it all be deducted from her
benefit?

--
Cheers, Serena

There is only one thing about which I am certain, and that is that
there is very little about which one can be certain. (W. Somerset Maugham)

[GB]

On 28/02/2013 21:05, Serena Blanchflower wrote:

>> best option - take in a lodger
>
> Do Housing Association rental agreements generally allow people to take
> in lodgers? I remember hearing of one person recently who challenged
> one of the cabinet about this and was advised to get a lodger. Her
> reply (ignored by the politician) was that her tenancy didn't permit
> it. I don't know how common that is though.
>
> Assuming Sally's tenancy does allow her to take a lodger, given that
> she's on means tested benefits, would she be allowed to keep any of the
> rent the lodger paid her, or would it all be deducted from her benefit?
>

There is a big social benefit through Sally taking in a lodger, as said
lodger gets housed at minimal expense. Consequently, the government
needs to ensure that the rules are altered to allow Sally to do this.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:05:02 +0000, Andy Champ put finger to keyboard and
typed:

She would be able to afford to cover the shortfall, and have some extra for
herself.

Despite claims to the contrary being made in some quarters, taking in a
lodger does not affect a person's right to social housing. In fact, taking
in a lodger is precisely one of the things that the policy is intended to
encourage, as it also helps address the shortage of social housing for
single people.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:05:02 +0000, Serena Blanchflower put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>* tim..... wrote, On 28/02/2013 18:15:
>>
>> best option - take in a lodger
>
>Do Housing Association rental agreements generally allow people to
>take in lodgers? I remember hearing of one person recently who
>challenged one of the cabinet about this and was advised to get a
>lodger. Her reply (ignored by the politician) was that her tenancy
>didn't permit it. I don't know how common that is though.

Most social housing agreements permit tenants to take in lodgers. What they
may not permit is subletting, which is a different type of arrangement. But
a lot of people don't understand the legal distinction between the two, so
it's not that surprising if they mistakenly think that they are prevented
from having a lodger.

>Assuming Sally's tenancy does allow her to take a lodger, given that
>she's on means tested benefits, would she be allowed to keep any of
>the rent the lodger paid her, or would it all be deducted from her
>benefit?

Up to £20 per week will not affect her benefits. If she earns more than
that her benefits will be affected pro-rata, but she will still be better
off overall.

[Roland Perry]

In message <512fca97$0$23473$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, at 21:25:01 on
Thu, 28 Feb 2013, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:

>There is a big social benefit through Sally taking in a lodger, as said
>lodger gets housed at minimal expense. Consequently, the government
>needs to ensure that the rules are altered to allow Sally to do this.

Given how paranoid the benefits people are about people secretly
co-habiting, I wonder if there isn't a significant downside in the
lodger scenario for them, when it would destroy much of their evidential
base for tracking suspected co-habitees.
--
Roland Perry

[RJH]

Take in a lodger. Why on earth should she? it's her home, and perhaps
she doesn't want to share her home (toilet, kitchen, lounge, shower with
a stranger). It's all very well us lot saying 'needs must' but I'd guess
anybody drawing that conclusion can afford to choose.

Private rentals. Poverty trap increases, security of tenure decreases,
standard perhaps lower, mobility limited.

It is amazing how, when it's somebody else, a home is just another
commodity they can do without.

Back to the OP. Nothing I know of. I'd guess that tenancy agreements
will need to be varied as a ground for possession, in much the same way
as they did for ASB a few years back.

Rob

[Robbie]

That wouldn't work for one of two reasons:

1. if her earnings are less than what she receives in JSA she will have,
apart from the first £5 earned, all earnings taken into account pound
for pound.

2. if her earnings exceed her JSA plus £5 then she will have her HB
reduced by 85p for every pound earned (65p / £ for HB and 20p / £ for
council tax benefit.

In either scenario she would still have to make up the shortfall between
rent eligible for HB and her actual rent.

--
Robbie

[tim.....]

"RJH" <patch...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:_o-dnZOsWt85SbLM...@bt.com...

> On 28/02/2013 19:20, steve robinson wrote:
>> John wrote:
>>
>>> Sally is unemployed, and liives in a two bedroom house provided by her
>>> local housing association. her rent is £100 a week paid for by
>>> housing benefits.
>>>
>>> From April Sally will have to pay £14 a week from her JSA, leaving her
>>> with just £57.70 to live on. Sally is trying to get a job, but
>>> prospects are extremely grim.
>>>
>>> She has asked both the Council and the Housing Association if they can
>>> move her but there is an acute shortage of 1 bedroom accomodation
>>> available.
>>>
>>> What legal challenges would be available for claimants like Sally, or
>>> is the above "bedroom tax" watertight?
>>
>> Take in a lodger, look into private rentals
>>
>
> Take in a lodger. Why on earth should she?

because she's not working and she can't afford the rent

This is what everyone has to do in the circumstances and I fail to see why
socially housed people should expect to be different in this respect

(Whilst I don't agree with the her losing her benefit this way we are where
we are, and she has to accept that )

> it's her home, and perhaps she doesn't want to share her home (toilet,
> kitchen, lounge, shower with a stranger). It's all very well us lot saying
> 'needs must' but I'd guess anybody drawing that conclusion can afford to
> choose.
>
> Private rentals. Poverty trap increases, security of tenure decreases,
> standard perhaps lower, mobility limited.

I agree that private rental is a bad move. The loss of SoT is critical to
someone whose employment situation is uncertain

tim

[Robbie]

First, it would depend if the person was a lodger or living as part of
the household as a non-dependent - if the latter then Sally wouldn't be
subject to the rules about under occupying but could have her HB reduced
anyway, and by a lot more than 14% depending on the income of the
non-dependent. The non-dependent would have to provide proof of income
and savings - which many non-dependents find intrusive, especially as
they aren't always claiming benefits themselves.

If the person is a proper lodger then again the under occupying rules
won't apply but any income from lodgers above £20 per week would reduce
Sally's HB pound for pound - for example £50 rent charged to lodger,
Sally can keep £20 and the other £30 reduces her HB so she has to pay
this over to meet the £30 shortfall in her HB.

--
Robbie

[Robbie]

John Smith wrote:
> X-No-Archive:Yes
>
>
> "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:512fca97$0$23473$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...

> ....but that is not happening anytime soon..... in the meantime..?
> I discovered a further anomaly this week.....
> It seems Foster Families *must* have a seperate bedroom available for a
> placement at anytime. Part of being on the Foster Carers register (or
> whatever it is termed by varying organisations..) requires this.
> Course, it's a spare room that *may* well be empty for numbers of weeks at a
> time...and therefore subject to the Tax... good isn't it?
>
>
> JS
>
>
>

Even if the child is staying there, they aren't included in the
calculation for deciding how many bedrooms are needed. A single person
or couple with a foster child will (according to official rules) need
only one bedroom.

--
Robbie

[GB]

Just to clarify this - if she takes in a lodger, she avoids the 14%
'bedroom tax' and gets to keep £20 per week of what the lodger pays in
rent? All this from over-provided public housing, paid for by housing
benefit? Too good to be true, surely?

[Percy Picacity]

If she enlarges her household she avoids the bedroom tax, but is
treated as a couple with joint earnings - probably she is much worse
off. If she take a lodger, she can keep the first 20GBP of rent but
needs to pay the bedroom tax. That is my understanding - corrections
anyone?

--

Percy Picacity

[Neil Williams]

Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> If she enlarges her household she avoids the bedroom tax, but is
> treated as a couple with joint earnings - probably she is much worse
> off. If she take a lodger, she can keep the first 20GBP of rent but
> needs to pay the bedroom tax. That is my understanding - corrections
> anyone?

It isn't a tax, it's reduced benefits. It's been talked about as a tax so
much that a load of people who are either homeowners or private renters and
do not receive benefits seem to think it applies to them as well!

FWIW, my view is that if someone affected applies for a smaller property
and is not given one, they should be exempted until said smaller property
is found.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

[Robbie]

If Sally has a lodger then she doesn't have a spare bedroom. It's being
rented out. The lodger does have some rights in this regard, she doesn't
have the bedroom available to her to do what she wants. And the £20 she
gets to keep of what the lodger pays could be offset by higher fuel
costs, possibly more expensive home insurance and a general disruption
to her life caused by having a stranger in her house.

She'd also probably be the subject of a "living together" visit
regardless of whether the lodger was male or female.

However, when Universal Credit is introduced (on a rolling basis from
April 2013) and HB is abolished, to be replaced by a housing element
within UC, then the 'bedroom tax' will apply, thus reversing the current
position - but any rent received from the lodger will not affect
benefit, unlike in HB where only the first £20 does not affect benefit.
Under UC this will be quite a generous provision. So in the case of
Sally when she moves from JSA/HB to UC she will gain if the rent she
charges is over £34 per week.
--
Robbie

[Zapp Brannigan]

"RJH" <patch...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:_o-dnZOsWt85SbLM...@bt.com...

> On 28/02/2013 19:20, steve robinson wrote:

>> Take in a lodger, look into private rentals
>
> Take in a lodger. Why on earth should she? it's her home, and perhaps she
> doesn't want to share her home (toilet, kitchen, lounge, shower with a
> stranger). It's all very well us lot saying 'needs must' but I'd guess
> anybody drawing that conclusion can afford to choose.

Her next-door neighbour Jane has no spare bedrooms, and works hard on
minimum wage to keep her family. Why should Jane pay taxes so that Sally
can remain sole occupant of a house which would more properly be allocated
to parents with one or two children? Maybe we used to be able to afford
that sort of generosity, but we certainly can't now.

[Janet]

In article <_o-dnZOsWt85SbLM...@bt.com>, patch...@gmx.com
says...

>
> On 28/02/2013 19:20, steve robinson wrote:
> > John wrote:
> >
> >> Sally is unemployed, and liives in a two bedroom house provided by her
> >> local housing association. her rent is £100 a week paid for by
> >> housing benefits.
> >>
> >> From April Sally will have to pay £14 a week from her JSA, leaving her
> >> with just £57.70 to live on. Sally is trying to get a job, but
> >> prospects are extremely grim.
> >>
> >> She has asked both the Council and the Housing Association if they can
> >> move her but there is an acute shortage of 1 bedroom accomodation
> >> available.
> >>
> >> What legal challenges would be available for claimants like Sally, or
> >> is the above "bedroom tax" watertight?
> >
> > Take in a lodger, look into private rentals
> >
>
> Take in a lodger. Why on earth should she? it's her home,

Why should she not? Just 30 years or so ago, single people of limited
means (including, full employment on low pay) expected to share
accommodation, with family ot flatmates or in lodgings etc.

and perhaps
> she doesn't want to share her home (toilet, kitchen, lounge, shower with
> a stranger).

Perhaps she could find a friend or relative to share it with.

> It is amazing how, when it's somebody else, a home is just another
> commodity they can do without.

Not really. When we were newly married and poor (both in full time
work, dustman and shop assistant, NOT claiming benefit) we took it for
granted we could not afford the luxury of a home all to ourselves. Our
first marital home was a couple of attic roms (no door) sharing the
(only) bathroom/lavatory (two floors down) with the landlady and her
lodger. Later when buying a place we took a lodger (who shared our only
bathroom and kitchen) to make ends meet.

Janet.

[John]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:05:02 +0000, Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

If Sally takes in a lodger and she charges £70 a week, her JSA will
reduce to £21.70 (1) That leaves £20, say £10 towards increased
bills so instead of Sally having to find £14 she now only has to find
£4.00
--
John

[John]

1. My sister is not allowed to take in lodgers. Her situation is
slightly different from Sally's as she gets DLA so is not as worse
off. She rents from a housing association which only rents to disabled
people and that is one of their policies. She has applied for one
bedrooom accommodation but there is very little available. As I see
to her finances I know that the extra £12 a week she will have to pay
will be a struggle. The irony is that she was in a one bedroom flat
and the council invited her to apply for the 2 bedroom flat she is in
now, as it was more suitable for her.

2. Taking in a lodger is a possible solution but not in all cases.
For instance would a family with two young girls for instance, with a
3 bedroom house, be comfortable renting out a room?

3. If Sally takes in a lodger and she charges £70 a week, her JSA will

reduce to £21.70 (1) That leaves £20, say £10 towards increased

bills £10 so instead of Sally having to find £14 she now only has to
find £4

Yep, take in a complete stranger to share your home, and still be £4 a
week worse off.

(1) Yep, I can see why the Govt is keen to promote taking in a
lodger
--
John

[John]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:35:02 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

In a post just made I said Sally would still be worse off by £4 a week
instead of £14

Rule 1 Don't post without thinking first. My post hasn't been
approved yet, but she won't be paying the bedroom tax. Sorry.
--
John

[John]

I don't think she will pay the bedroom tax, no.
--
John

[John]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:50:09 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

I can't see many up and coming professionals wanting to slum it in
social housing, can you?

As Robin says, at that end of the market I doubt you could afford to
be choosy.

--
John

[John]

Thanks Robbie, these are my sentiments too. If Sally wants to take in
a lodger then fine, and I calculate she will be £10 better off than
she is now.

However to be forced to do this, or pay the extra £14 a week, having
brought up two daughters who have now left home and married, just
wanting a quiet life in her own company, maybe have the grandkids
stopping over every now and again (1), is to me so wrong.

I hear the opposing argument, and in some cases have some sympathy
with that For example, I know a few who this will affect, one of
themn is a single person who has a 3 bedroom house, which she has had
for 16 years or so. It was a family home, but the daughter is now
grown up and she divorced her husband a long time ago. She could give
that up and I'm sure the council would bend over backwards to find her
somewhere smaller. She doesn't want to and is prepared to pay the £22
it will cost her extra. Thats up to her and I have no sympathy with
her if she moans about it.

Another friend has a 3 bedroom house with two boys, who both have
their own bedroom. The older boy has ADHD coupled with acute
beghavioural difficulties and it is not safe for them to share a room.
Taking in a lodger is simply not an option.

(1) New info

PS what's ASB?

--
John

[John]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:20:02 +0000, "steve robinson"
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:

>John wrote:
>
>> Sally is unemployed, and liives in a two bedroom house provided by her
>> local housing association. her rent is £100 a week paid for by
>> housing benefits.
>>
>> From April Sally will have to pay £14 a week from her JSA, leaving her
>> with just £57.70 to live on. Sally is trying to get a job, but
>> prospects are extremely grim.
>>
>> She has asked both the Council and the Housing Association if they can
>> move her but there is an acute shortage of 1 bedroom accomodation
>> available.
>>
>> What legal challenges would be available for claimants like Sally, or
>> is the above "bedroom tax" watertight?
>

>Take in a lodger, look into private rentals

I'm glad you mentioned that, because this is the stupidity surrounding
the whole issue.

Where I come from, the rent on a 2 bedroom council house is about £78
a week. If person rented privately a one bedroom flat would be
£450-£500 a month.

The Council will then pay all of that in Local Housing Allowance thus
costing them an extra £32 a week. instead of saving them £14

The only drawback to that of course is that a) social tenants caught
in this won't have the £500 bond and (b) the vast majority won't rent
to those on benefits.

A far better solution in my opinion would be to gradually increase
rents so they are in line with Housing Association Rents and allow
Housing Associations to build/buy up enough housing stock to relieve
the current housing crisis.
--
John

[John]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:50:02 +0000, Neil Williams
<wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:


>FWIW, my view is that if someone affected applies for a smaller property
>and is not given one, they should be exempted until said smaller property
>is found.

100% agreed. This is the most unfair thing about this, and which
really prompted my initial posting. If you want to stay put, fair
enough. But why should you be penalised if you are prepared to
downsize?
--
John

[John]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:35:02 +0000, "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com>
wrote:

Sally has applied for smaller accommodation, as she fully agrees with
Jane and has no issues in renting a one bedroom place. She has been
told there is none available. If, like my sister, the ha has a policy
of no lodgers, why should she be penalised?

--
John

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:55:02 +0000, John put finger to keyboard and typed:

>On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:50:09 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 28/02/2013 20:45, Robin Bignall wrote:
>>>
>>> That's OK if you're in your twenties. It seems to me that Sally
>>> probably had little or no choice in what she was given when she applied
>>> to the housing association, and now she's penalised for something that
>>> might be totally out of her control, no one-bedroom accommodation being
>>> available.
>>> Some lodgers are more trouble than they're worth, particularly at that
>>> end of the market.
>>>
>>
>>If she vets her lodger carefully, there should be no problem.
>
>I can't see many up and coming professionals wanting to slum it in
>social housing, can you?

Most social housing these days is not on traditional council housing style
sink estates. Usually, it's mixed in with other housing. That's almost
always a planning requirement for any new development. The only difference,
in many cases, between social housing and private rental is the identity of
the landlord. You could quite easily have a row of three identical
properties of which one is social housing, one is privately rented and the
third is owner occupied. So "slumming it" doesn't really apply.

[Roland Perry]

In message <N5WdnUyUu76oTLLM...@bt.com>, at 22:00:05 on
Thu, 28 Feb 2013, John Smith <heree...@tommorowandtoday.com>
remarked:

>It seems Foster Families *must* have a seperate bedroom available for a
>placement at anytime. Part of being on the Foster Carers register (or
>whatever it is termed by varying organisations..) requires this.
>Course, it's a spare room that *may* well be empty for numbers of weeks at a
>time...and therefore subject to the Tax... good isn't it?

How many foster parents are on Housing Benefit (genuine question).
--
Roland Perry

[Owain]

On Mar 1, 1:40 am, John wrote:
> Sally has applied for smaller accommodation, as she fully agrees with
> Jane and has no issues in renting a one bedroom place.  She has been
> told there is none available. If, like my sister, the ha has a policy
> of no lodgers, why should she be penalised?

It is up to the housing association to reword their tenancy agreement
to classify one of the bedrooms as a non-bedroom.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/tenants-avoid-bedroom-tax-after-knowsley-reclassifies-homes/6525752.article

The comments to that article mention some pitfalls.

Owain

[RJH]

On 01/03/2013 00:15, Janet wrote:
> In article <_o-dnZOsWt85SbLM...@bt.com>, patch...@gmx.com
> says...
>>
>> On 28/02/2013 19:20, steve robinson wrote:
>>> John wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sally is unemployed, and liives in a two bedroom house provided by her
>>>> local housing association. her rent is £100 a week paid for by
>>>> housing benefits.
>>>>
>>>> From April Sally will have to pay £14 a week from her JSA, leaving her
>>>> with just £57.70 to live on. Sally is trying to get a job, but
>>>> prospects are extremely grim.
>>>>
>>>> She has asked both the Council and the Housing Association if they can
>>>> move her but there is an acute shortage of 1 bedroom accomodation
>>>> available.
>>>>
>>>> What legal challenges would be available for claimants like Sally, or
>>>> is the above "bedroom tax" watertight?
>>>
>>> Take in a lodger, look into private rentals
>>>
>>
>> Take in a lodger. Why on earth should she? it's her home,
>
> Why should she not? Just 30 years or so ago, single people of limited
> means (including, full employment on low pay) expected to share
> accommodation, with family ot flatmates or in lodgings etc.
>

Because it's her home. The point at dispute is that I think all people
have a right to a decent home, and I'd include 'privacy' in that
definition, as well as basic Housing Act fitness.

>
> and perhaps
>> she doesn't want to share her home (toilet, kitchen, lounge, shower with
>> a stranger).
>
> Perhaps she could find a friend or relative to share it with.
>
>> It is amazing how, when it's somebody else, a home is just another
>> commodity they can do without.
>
> Not really. When we were newly married and poor (both in full time
> work, dustman and shop assistant, NOT claiming benefit) we took it for
> granted we could not afford the luxury of a home all to ourselves. Our
> first marital home was a couple of attic roms (no door) sharing the
> (only) bathroom/lavatory (two floors down) with the landlady and her
> lodger. Later when buying a place we took a lodger (who shared our only
> bathroom and kitchen) to make ends meet.
>

I don't see the point in my applying your standards and expectations to
a hypothetical stranger. Nobody should be expected to 'slum it'. We're a
rich country with very poor distribution of wealth, and until very
recently a net surplus of housing

Sally had the benefit of a home which she (rightly in my view) expected
to continue to enjoy for the rest of her life. That's at threat of being
taken away.

Leaving aside any moral* squabble, is there any legal challenge? I'm
hoping so.

Rob

* On which I am right BTW :-)

[RJH]

On 01/03/2013 00:55, John wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:50:09 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 28/02/2013 20:45, Robin Bignall wrote:
>>>
>>> That's OK if you're in your twenties. It seems to me that Sally
>>> probably had little or no choice in what she was given when she applied
>>> to the housing association, and now she's penalised for something that
>>> might be totally out of her control, no one-bedroom accommodation being
>>> available.
>>> Some lodgers are more trouble than they're worth, particularly at that
>>> end of the market.
>>>
>>
>> If she vets her lodger carefully, there should be no problem.
>
> I can't see many up and coming professionals wanting to slum it in
> social housing, can you?
>

Have you ever been to the Guinness homes in the City and West End, or
around Kennington? Or the JRF housing around York? Or the Tower Hamlets
terraces at the back of Spitalfields?

You should get out more ;-)

> As Robin says, at that end of the market I doubt you could afford to
> be choosy.
>

Rich equals pleasant, poor equals trouble? Dumb association in my view.

Rob

[steve robinson]

Then Sally needs to find herself cheaper accomadation, one bed studio
flat, bedsit house share etc possible move back in with her parents
(you dont say how old she is)

[steve robinson]

Because most benefit claiments will make very little effort to
downsize , dragging thier feet for as long as possible, putting up
artificial barriers to moving

A financial restriction on housing benefit gives them an incentive

[Man at B&Q]

On Feb 28, 10:10 pm, RJH <patchmo...@gmx.com> wrote:

>
> > Take in a lodger, look into private rentals
>
> Take in a lodger. Why on earth should she?

To make ends meet.

If she were renting privately from her own income and couldn't afford
a two bed home then she would have to do something about it. If there
were no one bed homes available in the area, what would you suggest?

Why should her current situation be any different?

MBQ

[Man at B&Q]

On Feb 28, 11:50 pm, Neil Williams <wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk>
wrote:

>
> It isn't a tax, it's reduced benefits.  It's been talked about as a tax

...because that's a more emotive description that the media and the
opposition can have fun with.

MBQ

[Man at B&Q]

On Mar 1, 1:30 am, John <focus594-remo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:50:02 +0000, Neil Williams
>

> <wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:
> >FWIW, my view is that if someone affected applies for a smaller property
> >and is not given one, they should be exempted until said smaller property
> >is found.
>
> 100% agreed.  This is the most unfair thing about this, and which
> really prompted my initial posting.   If you want to stay put, fair
> enough. But why should you be penalised if you are prepared to
> downsize?

Why treat her any differently to a non-benefits claimiant who cannot
find a suitable property?

MBQ

[steve robinson]

She doesn't need the extra Bedroom if she 'wants' an extra room to do
as she wants she cant expect the taxpayer to fund this , the pot
unfortunately is empty and the working population are at breaking point
they cant afford to pay more

Its unlikely to cost £20 a week extra in fuel costs, the property will
already be heated the lights will already be in use and the electrical
equipment in use , probably a pound a week more

The only insurance she will be paying is contents if it went up £100
(which is unlikely) thats less than £2.00 a week

Ultimately its her choice if she wants to keep her home then she may
have to face a little disruption.

>
> She'd also probably be the subject of a "living together" visit
> regardless of whether the lodger was male or female.

Probably

[steve robinson]

Probably not , they have a choice though and can downsize.

If your buying a property and you can no longer afford the repayments
you dont get government assistance you have to cut your cloth
accordingly , downsize , sell up take in a lodger, why should those on
benefits expect any different treatment.

Its a ridiculas state of affairs when 2 and three bedroom rental
properties are occupied by single occupants at state expense

>
> 3. If Sally takes in a lodger and she charges £70 a week, her JSA will
> reduce to £21.70 (1) That leaves £20, say £10 towards increased
> bills £10 so instead of Sally having to find £14 she now only has to
> find £4
>
> Yep, take in a complete stranger to share your home, and still be £4 a
> week worse off.
>
> (1) Yep, I can see why the Govt is keen to promote taking in a
> lodger

Only if you recieve tate benefits.

[steve robinson]

Move to a different area then

[steve robinson]

RJH wrote:

> On 28/02/2013 19:20, steve robinson wrote:

> > John wrote:
> >
> >> Sally is unemployed, and liives in a two bedroom house provided by
> her >> local housing association. her rent is £100 a week paid for by
> >> housing benefits.
> > >
> >> From April Sally will have to pay £14 a week from her JSA,
> leaving her >> with just £57.70 to live on. Sally is trying to get a
> job, but >> prospects are extremely grim.
> > >
> >> She has asked both the Council and the Housing Association if they
> can >> move her but there is an acute shortage of 1 bedroom
> accomodation >> available.
> > >
> >> What legal challenges would be available for claimants like Sally,
> or >> is the above "bedroom tax" watertight?
> >

> > Take in a lodger, look into private rentals
> >
>
> Take in a lodger. Why on earth should she? it's her home, and perhaps
> she doesn't want to share her home (toilet, kitchen, lounge, shower
> with a stranger). It's all very well us lot saying 'needs must' but
> I'd guess anybody drawing that conclusion can afford to choose.

Because she cant afford the rent, and like others that either cant
afford the rent/ mortgage have to make choices, lodger/ sell up/
downsize.

Benefits are a saftey net, its not to fund a lifestyle personal choices
or wants

>
> Private rentals. Poverty trap increases, security of tenure
> decreases, standard perhaps lower, mobility limited.
>

> It is amazing how, when it's somebody else, a home is just another
> commodity they can do without.

No one has said this, Sally has a right to somewhere to live, however
the taxpayer has rights to, which includes those on benefits live
within thier means if the property they occupy is larger than thier
requirements the taxpayer shouldnt be expected to fund the difference.

>
> Back to the OP. Nothing I know of. I'd guess that tenancy agreements
> will need to be varied as a ground for possession, in much the same
> way as they did for ASB a few years back.
>

> Rob

[steve robinson]

In that case she needs to downsize, move areas if nessasary

> >
> > and perhaps
> >> she doesn't want to share her home (toilet, kitchen, lounge,
> shower with >> a stranger).
> >
> > Perhaps she could find a friend or relative to share it with.
> >
> >> It is amazing how, when it's somebody else, a home is just another
> >> commodity they can do without.
> >
> > Not really. When we were newly married and poor (both in full
> > time work, dustman and shop assistant, NOT claiming benefit) we
> > took it for granted we could not afford the luxury of a home all to
> > ourselves. Our first marital home was a couple of attic roms (no
> > door) sharing the (only) bathroom/lavatory (two floors down) with
> > the landlady and her lodger. Later when buying a place we took a
> > lodger (who shared our only bathroom and kitchen) to make ends meet.
> >
>
> I don't see the point in my applying your standards and expectations
> to a hypothetical stranger. Nobody should be expected to 'slum it'.
> We're a rich country with very poor distribution of wealth, and until
> very recently a net surplus of housing

Last time i checked we were a trillion pounds in debt and its climbing

We are not a rich country at all the countries broke , we have rich
individuals living here who already pay a considerable amount into the
system ( cant find the exact figures but the top 10% of earners
generate about 75% of all tax revenue already)

>
> Sally had the benefit of a home which she (rightly in my view)
> expected to continue to enjoy for the rest of her life. That's at
> threat of being taken away.

Only because she cant meet her financial obligations, many people lose
homes they have bought or are buying. Would you as a taxpayer happly
pay off the mortgages and debts of house owners in a similar position

>
> Leaving aside any moral* squabble, is there any legal challenge? I'm
> hoping so.
>
> Rob
>
> * On which I am right BTW :-)

Unlikely

[Janet]

In article <1etvi8d8l380fmr8u...@4ax.com>, focus594-
rem...@yahoo.co.uk says...

>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:50:09 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 28/02/2013 20:45, Robin Bignall wrote:
> >>
> >> That's OK if you're in your twenties. It seems to me that Sally
> >> probably had little or no choice in what she was given when she applied
> >> to the housing association, and now she's penalised for something that
> >> might be totally out of her control, no one-bedroom accommodation being
> >> available.
> >> Some lodgers are more trouble than they're worth, particularly at that
> >> end of the market.
> >>
> >
> >If she vets her lodger carefully, there should be no problem.
>
> I can't see many up and coming professionals wanting to slum it in
> social housing, can you?

Just because Sally lives in social housing, does not mean it's a slum
or she keeps it like a midden. In areas where accommodation is very
expensive, or scarce, single professionals working on a temporary
contract might very much prefer to share a quiet, comfortable home
which is close to work and economical.
Just in my local area, we have, a GP training practice, a police
force which doubles during summer, 10 schools, an ambulance service
manned on a two week on two week off shift. All those professional
services employ shift, temporary, traineee and locum staff.. (all CRB
checked).. whose normal practice is to live in lodgings. They are
regarded as plum tenants by local landladies.

Janet

[Janet]

In article <21uvi8d2sltq88thf...@4ax.com>, focus594-
rem...@yahoo.co.uk says...

>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:10:02 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> >On 28/02/2013 19:20, steve robinson wrote:
>
> >Take in a lodger. Why on earth should she? it's her home, and perhaps
> >she doesn't want to share her home (toilet, kitchen, lounge, shower with
> >a stranger). It's all very well us lot saying 'needs must' but I'd guess
> >anybody drawing that conclusion can afford to choose.
> >
> >Private rentals. Poverty trap increases, security of tenure decreases,
> >standard perhaps lower, mobility limited.
> >
> >It is amazing how, when it's somebody else, a home is just another
> >commodity they can do without.
> >
> >Back to the OP. Nothing I know of. I'd guess that tenancy agreements
> >will need to be varied as a ground for possession, in much the same way
> >as they did for ASB a few years back.
>
> Thanks Robbie, these are my sentiments too. If Sally wants to take in
> a lodger then fine, and I calculate she will be £10 better off than
> she is now.
>
> However to be forced to do this, or pay the extra £14 a week, having
> brought up two daughters who have now left home and married, just
> wanting a quiet life in her own company, maybe have the grandkids
> stopping over every now and again (1), is to me so wrong.

I know property owners, no benefits, one bedroom retirement flat, who
put their visiting grandchildren to sleep on the floor in the
grandparents room. Their visiting children or friends sleep on the
sitting room sofa. I know employed professionals with no spare bedroom,
who give up their own to guests, and sleep on a sofa bed or air mattress
in the sitting room.

Why should Sally be subsidised in a more advantageous position than
any parent whose children have left home, does not qualify for benefit,
and cannot afford to keep living in and maintaining the family home on
their income so faces leaving the home friends, and area to move to a
cheaper area.

Taxpayers who fend for themselves, working or retired, face such
economies and difficult choices all the time and the state does not bail
them out.

Janet.

[steve robinson]

Done this myself years ago cheaper than a hotel.

I used to pay her extra for meals and doing my washing to , saved me
the hassle and from her perspective she was already cooking (something
she enjoyed) and washing anyway.

[Janet]

In article <t600j89r0m1m0pseq...@4ax.com>, focus594-
rem...@yahoo.co.uk says...

Why should the unemployed benefit recipient have the option of
staying put, unlike working people who often have to move house to
wherever they can get work/afford to live.

Janet

[Ophelia]

"Janet" <h...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2b9a02edb...@News.Individual.NET...

> Not really. When we were newly married and poor (both in full time
> work, dustman and shop assistant, NOT claiming benefit) we took it for
> granted we could not afford the luxury of a home all to ourselves. Our
> first marital home was a couple of attic roms (no door) sharing the
> (only) bathroom/lavatory (two floors down) with the landlady and her
> lodger. Later when buying a place we took a lodger (who shared our only
> bathroom and kitchen) to make ends meet.

Like the conditions of Glaswegians who lived in the Gorbals slums? Not so
long ago such a way of life was common. I can't see that anyone receiving
benefits these days is expected to live in such harsh conditions. For
*most* people a smaller property would not cause severe hardship. Whether
they can find such a property or would have to change their standard of
living to keep their current one is another matter. I make no comment on
the fairness to either the tenant or the tax payer.



--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Janet]

In article <cl00j810k13q44eld...@4ax.com>, focus594-
rem...@yahoo.co.uk says...

Has Sally made every personal effort on the many council-house tenant
exchange websites, to find a one-bed in another area ? There might be
tenant families desperate to swap for her two bed.

Janet






Janet

[Janet]

In article <Yt-dnVOQcp0H8a3M...@bt.com>, patch...@gmx.com
says...

Subject: Re: The bedroom tax
From: RJH <patch...@gmx.com>
Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated

I thought you just did, when you said above. "when its somebody
else, .....".

> Nobody should be expected to 'slum it'.

Nobody suggested she should. We never slummed it, btw; we were and
still are perfectly happy to live within our means. The fact that
richer people live in far bigger houses, does NOT mean I'm either
slumming it, or, entitled to share their lifestyle.

>Sally had the benefit of a home which she (rightly in my view) expected
>to continue to enjoy for the rest of her life.

Sally's sense of entitlement was misplaced.
Most working people, rent payers and property owners alike, can't enjoy
any such lifetime state guarantee and security to stay in their home
forever regardless of their personal means.

Janet

[RJH]

On 01/03/2013 01:10, John wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:10:02 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>

>> On 28/02/2013 19:20, steve robinson wrote:
>

>> Take in a lodger. Why on earth should she? it's her home, and perhaps

>> she doesn't want to share her home (toilet, kitchen, lounge, shower with

>> a stranger). It's all very well us lot saying 'needs must' but I'd guess
>> anybody drawing that conclusion can afford to choose.
>>

>> Private rentals. Poverty trap increases, security of tenure decreases,
>> standard perhaps lower, mobility limited.
>>

>> It is amazing how, when it's somebody else, a home is just another
>> commodity they can do without.
>>

>> Back to the OP. Nothing I know of. I'd guess that tenancy agreements
>> will need to be varied as a ground for possession, in much the same way
>> as they did for ASB a few years back.
>
> Thanks Robbie, these are my sentiments too. If Sally wants to take in
> a lodger then fine, and I calculate she will be £10 better off than
> she is now.
>
> However to be forced to do this, or pay the extra £14 a week, having
> brought up two daughters who have now left home and married, just
> wanting a quiet life in her own company, maybe have the grandkids
> stopping over every now and again (1), is to me so wrong.
>

> I hear the opposing argument, and in some cases have some sympathy
> with that For example, I know a few who this will affect, one of
> themn is a single person who has a 3 bedroom house, which she has had
> for 16 years or so. It was a family home, but the daughter is now
> grown up and she divorced her husband a long time ago. She could give
> that up and I'm sure the council would bend over backwards to find her
> somewhere smaller. She doesn't want to and is prepared to pay the £22
> it will cost her extra. Thats up to her and I have no sympathy with
> her if she moans about it.
>
> Another friend has a 3 bedroom house with two boys, who both have
> their own bedroom. The older boy has ADHD coupled with acute
> beghavioural difficulties and it is not safe for them to share a room.
> Taking in a lodger is simply not an option.
>
> (1) New info
>
> PS what's ASB?
>

Anti-social behaviour.

Rob

[RJH]

On 01/03/2013 01:20, John wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:20:02 +0000, "steve robinson"
snip

>>
>> Take in a lodger, look into private rentals
>

> I'm glad you mentioned that, because this is the stupidity surrounding
> the whole issue.
>
> Where I come from, the rent on a 2 bedroom council house is about £78
> a week. If person rented privately a one bedroom flat would be
> £450-£500 a month.
>
> The Council will then pay all of that in Local Housing Allowance thus
> costing them an extra £32 a week. instead of saving them £14
>
> The only drawback to that of course is that a) social tenants caught
> in this won't have the £500 bond and (b) the vast majority won't rent
> to those on benefits.
>
> A far better solution in my opinion would be to gradually increase
> rents so they are in line with Housing Association Rents and allow
> Housing Associations to build/buy up enough housing stock to relieve
> the current housing crisis.
>

The 'convergence' has been happening over the past 10 years, and pushed
LA rents up several fold in real terms. It's due to be complete in the
next year or so.

HAs now have the 'opportunity' to charge up to 80% market rents for new
homes an relets, and subsidy is loosely based on this assumption. But
HAs can't provide decent housing, and manage it properly, on that level
of subsidy. Well, they can try, but the current subsidy round has seen a
good amount of subsidy handed back.

The answer is to allow public sector borrowing - like the good old days
(1950-70) but with the benefit of hindsight and proper accountability.

Rob

[AC]

RJH wrote:
> On 28/02/2013 19:20, steve robinson wrote:

>> John wrote:
>>
>>> Sally is unemployed, and liives in a two bedroom house provided by her
>>> local housing association. her rent is £100 a week paid for by
>>> housing benefits.
>>>
>>> From April Sally will have to pay £14 a week from her JSA, leaving her
>>> with just £57.70 to live on. Sally is trying to get a job, but
>>> prospects are extremely grim.
>>>
>>> She has asked both the Council and the Housing Association if they can
>>> move her but there is an acute shortage of 1 bedroom accomodation
>>> available.
>>>
>>> What legal challenges would be available for claimants like Sally, or
>>> is the above "bedroom tax" watertight?
>>

>> Take in a lodger, look into private rentals
>>
>

> Take in a lodger. Why on earth should she?

Because it makes sufferers of poverty envy happy. As long as poor people
are miserable, the UK is a happy place.

--
AC

[steve robinson]

John wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:20:02 +0000, "steve robinson"

> <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > John wrote:
> >
> >> Sally is unemployed, and liives in a two bedroom house provided by
> her >> local housing association. her rent is £100 a week paid for by
> >> housing benefits.
> >>
> >> From April Sally will have to pay £14 a week from her JSA, leaving
> her >> with just £57.70 to live on. Sally is trying to get a job, but
> >> prospects are extremely grim.
> >>
> >> She has asked both the Council and the Housing Association if they
> can >> move her but there is an acute shortage of 1 bedroom
> accomodation >> available.
> >>
> >> What legal challenges would be available for claimants like Sally,
> or >> is the above "bedroom tax" watertight?
> >
> > Take in a lodger, look into private rentals
>

> I'm glad you mentioned that, because this is the stupidity surrounding
> the whole issue.
>
> Where I come from, the rent on a 2 bedroom council house is about £78
> a week. If person rented privately a one bedroom flat would be
> £450-£500 a month.
>
> The Council will then pay all of that in Local Housing Allowance thus
> costing them an extra £32 a week. instead of saving them £14
>
> The only drawback to that of course is that a) social tenants caught
> in this won't have the £500 bond and (b) the vast majority won't rent
> to those on benefits.
>
> A far better solution in my opinion would be to gradually increase
> rents so they are in line with Housing Association Rents and allow
> Housing Associations to build/buy up enough housing stock to relieve
> the current housing crisis.

That is a problem , i wont rent to those on benefit and this is going
to become more of a problem when the rent gets paid direct to the
tenants

A few landlords i know who do rent to benefits claiments are looking at
offloading them at the end of the tenancy , increasing the deposits on
six month tenancy and the viability of rental being paid every six
months up front

[Roland Perry]

In message <rcqdnQyKMc6Y7a3M...@bt.com>, at 09:10:02 on
Fri, 1 Mar 2013, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> remarked:

>The answer is to allow public sector borrowing

Gordon Brown borrowed £450m/day - equivalent in total to £40k per
household. I assume that's every household, not excluding those in the
social housing sector, which are quite unlikely to be able to help pay
it back.
--
Roland Perry

[Janet]

In article <kqqvi8tohpkvss3nc...@4ax.com>, focus594-
rem...@yahoo.co.uk says...

> 2. Taking in a lodger is a possible solution but not in all cases.
> For instance would a family with two young girls for instance, with a
> 3 bedroom house, be comfortable renting out a room?

Why not? They choose the lodger according to their own criterion
and take up references.They might, for example, offer to accommodate a
female teacher or nurse whose employment required her to pass CRB
checks.

Janet

[Ian W]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:35:01 +0000, John
<focus594...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Sally is unemployed, and liives in a two bedroom house provided by her
>local housing association. her rent is £100 a week paid for by
>housing benefits.
>
>From April Sally will have to pay £14 a week from her JSA, leaving her
>with just £57.70 to live on. Sally is trying to get a job, but
>prospects are extremely grim.
>
>She has asked both the Council and the Housing Association if they can
>move her but there is an acute shortage of 1 bedroom accomodation
>available.
>
>What legal challenges would be available for claimants like Sally, or
>is the above "bedroom tax" watertight?

Interesting points have been made on both sides of this - but let us
not forget that Sally, in most local authority areas, is going to have
to also find another £5-£6 per week out of her £71 to pay Council Tax
from April.
I can understand someone on the £500 week benefit cap being asked to
contribute, but where are the Sally's of this world going to find this
money - even with a lodger.
If she does not pay what is the maximum a court would order her to pay
weekly from her subsistence income? £3-£4?

Ian

[steve robinson]

It depends wether the plaintiff wll accept such payments, if its not
going to clear her debt they are unlikely to accept it

[Nick Odell]

This article from the Grauniad suggests that many councils are
resigned to kissing the money goodbye.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/27/low-incomes-council-tax-local

Nick

[tim.....]

"RJH" <patch...@gmx.com> wrote in message

news:Yt-dnVOQcp0H8a3M...@bt.com...

> On 01/03/2013 00:15, Janet wrote:
>> In article <_o-dnZOsWt85SbLM...@bt.com>, patch...@gmx.com
>> says...
>>>

>>> On 28/02/2013 19:20, steve robinson wrote:

>>>> John wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sally is unemployed, and liives in a two bedroom house provided by her
>>>>> local housing association. her rent is £100 a week paid for by
>>>>> housing benefits.
>>>>>
>>>>> From April Sally will have to pay £14 a week from her JSA, leaving
>>>>> her
>>>>> with just £57.70 to live on. Sally is trying to get a job, but
>>>>> prospects are extremely grim.
>>>>>
>>>>> She has asked both the Council and the Housing Association if they can
>>>>> move her but there is an acute shortage of 1 bedroom accomodation
>>>>> available.
>>>>>
>>>>> What legal challenges would be available for claimants like Sally, or
>>>>> is the above "bedroom tax" watertight?
>>>>

>>>> Take in a lodger, look into private rentals
>>>>
>>>

>>> Take in a lodger. Why on earth should she? it's her home,
>>
>> Why should she not? Just 30 years or so ago, single people of limited
>> means (including, full employment on low pay) expected to share
>> accommodation, with family ot flatmates or in lodgings etc.
>>
>
> Because it's her home.

which she can't afford!

whatever right she has to be housed she doesn't have a right to be housed in
a property that is bigger than her needs which she can't afford to pay for

tim

[steve robinson]

You can see the headlines now scroungers fail to pay, not going to go
down well with those that do

[Man at B&Q]

On Mar 1, 9:10 am, RJH <patchmo...@gmx.com> wrote:

>
> The answer is to allow public sector borrowing - like the good old days

WOuld those be the good old days of Nu Labour and Tory B. Liar?

MBQ

[Syd Rumpo]

On 01/03/2013 08:00, Mark Goodge wrote:

<snip>
>
> Most social housing these days is not on traditional council housing style
> sink estates. Usually, it's mixed in with other housing. That's almost
> always a planning requirement for any new development. The only difference,
> in many cases, between social housing and private rental is the identity of
> the landlord. You could quite easily have a row of three identical
> properties of which one is social housing, one is privately rented and the
> third is owner occupied. So "slumming it" doesn't really apply.
>
> Mark
>
The ones I've seen on new developments aren't really mixed in, they're
the smaller ones in the less desirable locations, albeit on the same
site: in other words, those which would make the least for the developer.

Cheers
--
Syd

[Scion]

Janet put finger to keyboard:

Because it is their home? Because society shouldn't treat those who are
perhaps less fortunate as a commodity to be stored at the cheapest cost?
Because a better solution would be to have more affordable housing and/or
more council housing stock?

[John]

Ok, then the simple answer would be to not allow under occupancy. As
soon as a spare room becomes available the council should enforce an
exhange with someone in need of an extra bedroom.

--
John

[John]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:00:03 +0000, "steve robinson"
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:

>John wrote:

>> 2. Taking in a lodger is a possible solution but not in all cases.
>> For instance would a family with two young girls for instance, with a
>> 3 bedroom house, be comfortable renting out a room?
>

>Probably not , they have a choice though and can downsize.

If only it were that simple, and it is an option that I agree with in
most circumstances. My niece is currently trying to downsize from 3
bed to 2 bed, and it's proving difficult. 3 potential mutual
exchanges have fallen throgh because the other side have pulled out.

>If your buying a property and you can no longer afford the repayments
>you dont get government assistance you have to cut your cloth
>accordingly , downsize , sell up take in a lodger, why should those on
>benefits expect any different treatment.
>
>Its a ridiculas state of affairs when 2 and three bedroom rental
>properties are occupied by single occupants at state expense

Like I said to Janet, enforce it fairly. Make occupants downsize when
they are under occupied, but don't penalise those who are prepared to
downsize but can't.

--
John

[John]

Fine if that's possible, and a viable option I agree, in the right
areas. Not all areas are right of course, and I can't see many nurses
or teachers wanting to live in a run down council estate.
--
John

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 09:05:02 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>In message <N5WdnUyUu76oTLLM...@bt.com>, at 22:00:05 on
>Thu, 28 Feb 2013, John Smith <heree...@tommorowandtoday.com>
>remarked:
>>It seems Foster Families *must* have a seperate bedroom available for a
>>placement at anytime. Part of being on the Foster Carers register (or
>>whatever it is termed by varying organisations..) requires this.
>>Course, it's a spare room that *may* well be empty for numbers of weeks at a
>>time...and therefore subject to the Tax... good isn't it?
>
>How many foster parents are on Housing Benefit (genuine question).

6%, or approximately 2,700, according to the Fostering Network:

http://www.fostering.net/sites/www.fostering.net/files/public/resources/fostering-networks-position/housing_benefit_foster_care_briefing.pdf

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 08:55:01 +0000, RJH put finger to keyboard and typed:

>>
>
>Because it's her home. The point at dispute is that I think all people
>have a right to a decent home, and I'd include 'privacy' in that
>definition, as well as basic Housing Act fitness.

I agree that everyone has a right to *a* home. What I don't accept is a
right to any one particular home. The vast majority of us have to move
house several times during our lives for a variety of different reasons.
Inability to afford to stay in the one you're currently in is one very good
reason for doing so.

>Sally had the benefit of a home which she (rightly in my view) expected

>to continue to enjoy for the rest of her life. That's at threat of being
>taken away.

I don't think she has any such right whatsoever. The only way to have a
reasonable right to long term security of tenure is to become a homeowner.
People in rented property, whether private or social, have to accept that
they are not ultimately in control of where they will live.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

John <focus594...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>Its a ridiculas state of affairs when 2 and three bedroom rental
>>properties are occupied by single occupants at state expense
>
> Like I said to Janet, enforce it fairly. Make occupants
> downsize when they are under occupied, but don't penalise those
> who are prepared to downsize but can't.

How do you make the distinction between those who won't and those who
can't? It seems fair in concept, but in practice I suspect it would
be difficult to manage.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[John]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 09:00:12 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:

>On 01/03/2013 00:55, John wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:50:09 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/02/2013 20:45, Robin Bignall wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's OK if you're in your twenties. It seems to me that Sally
>>>> probably had little or no choice in what she was given when she applied
>>>> to the housing association, and now she's penalised for something that
>>>> might be totally out of her control, no one-bedroom accommodation being
>>>> available.
>>>> Some lodgers are more trouble than they're worth, particularly at that
>>>> end of the market.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If she vets her lodger carefully, there should be no problem.
>>
>> I can't see many up and coming professionals wanting to slum it in
>> social housing, can you?
>>
>

>Have you ever been to the Guinness homes in the City and West End, or
>around Kennington? Or the JRF housing around York? Or the Tower Hamlets
>terraces at the back of Spitalfields?

I am aware of the Rowntree and Bourneville estates, ceratinly.
"proper" social housing imo. People tend to forget the "sink"
estates, where social deprivation is rife, and this just makes it
worse. Taking in a lodger is probably not an option there, and nobody
will be looking to exchange there unless it's on the same estate.

>You should get out more ;-)

I try :-)

>> As Robin says, at that end of the market I doubt you could afford to
>> be choosy.
>>
>
>Rich equals pleasant, poor equals trouble? Dumb association in my view.

That's the general stereotyping yes, (not mine, I was being slightly
sarcastic) I believe the majority of up and coming professionals
would consider it slumming it and wouldn't be looking to rent a room
in a ne'er do well area.
--
John

[John]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:30:10 +0000, Janet <h...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>In article <1etvi8d8l380fmr8u...@4ax.com>, focus594-
>rem...@yahoo.co.uk says...

>> I can't see many up and coming professionals wanting to slum it in
>> social housing, can you?
>

> Just because Sally lives in social housing, does not mean it's a slum
>or she keeps it like a midden.

I was thinking more from the professionals POV, not Sally's. In a
"good" area that will work, certainly, but not in a "bad" area.

>In areas where accommodation is very
>expensive, or scarce, single professionals working on a temporary
>contract might very much prefer to share a quiet, comfortable home
>which is close to work and economical.
> Just in my local area, we have, a GP training practice, a police
>force which doubles during summer, 10 schools, an ambulance service
>manned on a two week on two week off shift. All those professional
>services employ shift, temporary, traineee and locum staff.. (all CRB
>checked).. whose normal practice is to live in lodgings. They are
>regarded as plum tenants by local landladies.

If that sort of situation I agree with you. Sadly, not all social
housing is that "nice" and certainly with regards to council stock,
it's usually only the bottom end of the market that's left. I'm
lucky, my home is council, and it's not a bad estate by any means. I
should also say that the bedroom tax doesn't affect me, but I know of
quite a few it does.

Taking in a lodger is one option, and downsizing is certainly another
if there is stock available. It's where neither option is available
that I object.

--
John

[John]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 14:30:09 +0000, "tim....."
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Regarding Sally.

>which she can't afford!
>

yes the Govt would be prepared to pay her an extra £50/60 a week for
privately renting a one bedroom flat.

Social housing is considerably cheaper than privately rented, and the
Govt could do a lot more to make social housing widely available. In
would save them far more than they are trying to save here and instead
of paying wealthy (some of them anyway) BTL landlords your hard earned
taxpayers money, a bit of longsightedness now would reap dividends in
the future, imo.

--
John

[John]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:20:01 +0000, "steve robinson"

But would it not make sense to rent to a tenant like Sally? Guaranteed
rent every week, vet the right person and you are doing your bit for
society. :-)

Paying private enants directly was a travesty and like you say in the
bit I've snipped Landlords are just not interested in the HB tenant
any more. Unfortunately unscrupulous landlords spoiled it for the
good ones.

But why an earth Council/Housing Associations tenants are to get their
HB paid direct to them in order to hand it back again I have no idea,
and imo is a recipe for disaster.

Whilst it "should" be te tenants first priority to ensure a roof over
their heads, not everyone is blessed with good money sense and will
just add extra pressure with other bills pressing too. And let's not
even consider the drug addict who will not even stop to think rent
should be before drugs....

The cynical bit of me thinks there's a bit of social engineering
afoot. If it is I can see it exploding big style in the Govt's face

--
John

[John]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:10:02 +0000, Ian W <ia...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:35:01 +0000, John
><focus594...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sally is unemployed, and liives in a two bedroom house provided by her
>>local housing association. her rent is £100 a week paid for by
>>housing benefits.
>>
>>From April Sally will have to pay £14 a week from her JSA, leaving her
>>with just £57.70 to live on. Sally is trying to get a job, but
>>prospects are extremely grim.
>>
>>She has asked both the Council and the Housing Association if they can
>>move her but there is an acute shortage of 1 bedroom accomodation
>>available.
>>
>>What legal challenges would be available for claimants like Sally, or
>>is the above "bedroom tax" watertight?
>
>Interesting points have been made on both sides of this - but let us
>not forget that Sally, in most local authority areas, is going to have
>to also find another £5-£6 per week out of her £71 to pay Council Tax
>from April.

Fortunately in the two authorities where my friend's are situated,
neither has imposed a minimum CT on those in most need.

For the areas that have, in some cases a 25% contribution. it could
mean Sally having to find an extra £10 a week on top, given that she
would also lose her single person subsidy.

--
John

[John]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 09:35:01 +0000, "steve robinson"
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:


>Then Sally needs to find herself cheaper accomadation, one bed studio
>flat, bedsit house share etc possible move back in with her parents
>(you dont say how old she is)

Early 50's. Sally brought up her two girls who have now left home and
got married.

--
John

[Janet]

In article <obi1j8p9e7f2gpbpe...@4ax.com>, focus594-
rem...@yahoo.co.uk says...

Newly qualified teachers are finding it very hard to get permanent
posts; many can only get short term supply contracts. Meaning a 6-month
tenancy agreement on a flat may be difficult to get and the job may end
before the rent payments. For them, lodgings are a cheaper and more
flexible solution.

Janet.

[Simon Farnsworth]

You could gate it on whether the occupant has applied to the council for
smaller housing, and not rejected an offered alternative.

If the council has no 1 bed housing, it feels unreasonable to penalise the
tenants; if the tenant will not move into the available 1 bed housing,
that's a different matter, and expecting the tenant to contribute seems
fair.

--
Simon Farnsworth

[Janet]

In article <8gj1j89fop7sbli9r...@4ax.com>, focus594-
rem...@yahoo.co.uk says...

>
> On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:30:10 +0000, Janet <h...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1etvi8d8l380fmr8u...@4ax.com>, focus594-
> >rem...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
> >> I can't see many up and coming professionals wanting to slum it in
> >> social housing, can you?
> >
> > Just because Sally lives in social housing, does not mean it's a slum
> >or she keeps it like a midden.
>
> I was thinking more from the professionals POV, not Sally's. In a
> "good" area that will work, certainly, but not in a "bad" area.

Many mobile young professionals are new graduates fresh from student
flats, with a big student loan, and not nearly as fussy as you may
think.

Janet.

[RJH]

No - 50s-70s. Well snipped :-)

The thing with housing is that you get it back through rent - or at
least a sizeable chunk. The 50s loans were over 80 years, and were it
not for the social problems and occasionally shoddy design/build it
would have been a reasonably contained account. And public sector
borrowing is considerably cheaper than private sector.

The calculations have been done/presented a thousand times and it always
adds up. But the government isn't inclined to let LAs run with that sort
of programme ever again. And the small matter of G7/20 'let the private
sector rip' dogma.

Rob

[steve robinson]

So move to a different area, plenty of studio flats up for grabs in
the West Midlands

[steve robinson]

They only get a return on the investment if the tenants pay rent, the
problem with most social housing the state pays it.

Another problem you have with social housing is the complete contempt
many of the ocupantys hae towards the fabric of the building.

Recently i was asked to do 12 month maintainace on new build social
housing in Birmingham , whilst a couple of the properties had been well
looked after , many needed thousands of pounds spent to repair the
damage caused by tenants , new kitchens with doors ripped off walls
that were so filthy they needed scrubbing with sugar soap and flatting
back or replastering doors with holes kicked in them or ripped off the
hinges cigerette burns on cills .

Non of the tenants were charged for the damage repairs

[steve robinson]

Only if the rent was being paid direct which is being stopped, one of
the lads i subbie work to has a flat let to a single girl, local
council started paying her direct , he's now £5000.00 down she bought
herself a new car , went on holiday and basically told him to go
f.... himself
Her answer to the legal paperwork , get f..... c...t sue me i dont care
ill just go bankrupt

Its just not worth the risk

>
> Paying private enants directly was a travesty and like you say in the
> bit I've snipped Landlords are just not interested in the HB tenant
> any more. Unfortunately unscrupulous landlords spoiled it for the
> good ones.
>
> But why an earth Council/Housing Associations tenants are to get their
> HB paid direct to them in order to hand it back again I have no idea,
> and imo is a recipe for disaster.
>
> Whilst it "should" be te tenants first priority to ensure a roof over
> their heads, not everyone is blessed with good money sense and will
> just add extra pressure with other bills pressing too. And let's not
> even consider the drug addict who will not even stop to think rent
> should be before drugs....
>
> The cynical bit of me thinks there's a bit of social engineering
> afoot. If it is I can see it exploding big style in the Govt's face

Quite possibly.

Without the private landlords the government would be stuffed BTL over
50 % of the rental market

[John]

In the meantime people have to rent privately, pushing up rental
prices, which in turn pushes up local housing allowance costs (aka
housing benefit)

--
John

[John]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:20:02 +0000, "steve robinson"

Last I heard, housing waiting lists are sky high. You're not going to
get priority in an area where you have no local interest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-19622008


Are you suggesting the same for disabled people and people over
pensionable age?

The only possible reason I can see for uprooting to another area,
where you will not know anyone, is to improve your job prospects.

--
John

[Robbie]

Many people who receive HB are in work (in London 80% of working age
claimants of HB are actually in work). I doubt it would be feasible to
pack in a job to move elsewhere, especially as they would then receive
no JSA for 26 weeks due to making themselves voluntary unemployed.

--
Robbie

[Andy Champ]

On 01/03/2013 16:25, John wrote:
> yes the Govt would be prepared to pay her an extra £50/60 a week for
> privately renting a one bedroom flat.
>
> Social housing is considerably cheaper than privately rented, and the
> Govt could do a lot more to make social housing widely available. In
> would save them far more than they are trying to save here and instead
> of paying wealthy (some of them anyway) BTL landlords your hard earned
> taxpayers money, a bit of longsightedness now would reap dividends in
> the future, imo.

Moving Sally into a one-bedroom private landlord let might free her
2-bed flat for a family that is currently in privately let accommodation
at a higher cost to the LA, just because it is bigger.

On the other hand there may be no 1-bed private sector lets...

What bugs me about this is that if Sally gets off her ... err.. gets on
her bike and finds a little job, or gets a tenant, she loses the extra
off her benefits. That's no more correct than 98% supertax was.

Andy

[BartC]

"Scion" <a...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:kgqeit$p3b$4...@dont-email.me...
> Janet put finger to keyboard:

>> Why should the unemployed benefit recipient have the option of
>> staying put, unlike working people who often have to move house to
>> wherever they can get work/afford to live.

> Because it is their home?

So? The working people have homes that they might not want to leave either!

Anyway, 'Sally' can choose to stay put in her house, either forever, or
until she decides to move. But it will cost her £14 per week in the
meantime.

If this person is poor enough that £14 a week is a big deal (and has not
accumulated any savings to tide her over, and has no friends or family to
help out), then should such a person be able to afford a 2-bedroom to
herself anyway?

> Because society shouldn't treat those who are
> perhaps less fortunate as a commodity to be stored at the cheapest cost?
> Because a better solution would be to have more affordable housing and/or
> more council housing stock?

The problem seems to be that the council has been too generous in the past;
taking something away hurts more than if someone had never had it in the
first place.

Working people who pay for their own housing are used to privations (living
in rooms and bedsits and house-shares, taking in lodgers and such, living
only to the standard they can afford, and having to move to where the
housing is cheap). But the suggestion in this thread is that people living
in social housing, who might also be claiming HB, are too good to put up
with all that!

--
Bartc

[Zapp Brannigan]

"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:o812j8dvl9gk23n58...@4ax.com...
> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> considered Fri, 01 Mar 2013
> 00:35:02 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>>"RJH" <patch...@gmx.com> wrote in message
>>news:_o-dnZOsWt85SbLM...@bt.com...

>>> On 28/02/2013 19:20, steve robinson wrote:
>>
>>>> Take in a lodger, look into private rentals
>>>

>>> Take in a lodger. Why on earth should she? it's her home, and perhaps
>>> she
>>> doesn't want to share her home (toilet, kitchen, lounge, shower with a
>>> stranger). It's all very well us lot saying 'needs must' but I'd guess
>>> anybody drawing that conclusion can afford to choose.
>>
>>Her next-door neighbour Jane has no spare bedrooms, and works hard on
>>minimum wage to keep her family. Why should Jane pay taxes so that Sally
>>can remain sole occupant of a house which would more properly be allocated
>>to parents with one or two children? Maybe we used to be able to afford
>>that sort of generosity, but we certainly can't now.
>>
> Then we should not be making dodgy agreements with tax defaulters to
> write off their debts, and letting huge multinationals escape paying
> tax altogether.

Yes, and scrap Trident, withdraw from costly colonial adventures in sandy
places, etc. I agree that those would be more sensible ways to save money,
but I still wouldn't want to see the savings invested in maintaining the
insanely-unfair allocation of social housing.

[Zapp Brannigan]

"John" <focus594...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:21uvi8d2sltq88thf...@4ax.com...

> a single person who has a 3 bedroom house, which she has had
> for 16 years or so. It was a family home, but the daughter is now
> grown up and she divorced her husband a long time ago. She could give
> that up and I'm sure the council would bend over backwards to find her
> somewhere smaller. She doesn't want to and is prepared to pay the £22
> it will cost her extra. Thats up to her and I have no sympathy with
> her if she moans about it.
>
> Another friend has a 3 bedroom house with two boys, who both have
> their own bedroom. The older boy has ADHD coupled with acute
> beghavioural difficulties and it is not safe for them to share a room.
> Taking in a lodger is simply not an option.

That's a fair and balanced view. Hopefully the HA's will approach these
very different cases in very different ways.