Plain Talker Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Is this correct? If there is a smaller adapted property available, then fine, if there is not then there should be no charge as they cannot move to a smaller property if there isn't one that is suitable. There are nowhere near enough smaller properties, let alone adapted properties. (My best mate had 7 months on homeless priority before she was finally housed in a wheelchair-accessible flat) A smaller property may not automatically be suitable. What about the person who needs a second bedroom for a carer? or for medical/bulky equipment? Should a disabled person be moved into a property that has adaptations that are not the right ones for their needs? Does the disabled person have to move into an unsuitable property just because it's smaller? how does the person manage whilst waiting for the correct adaptations? How do they manage whilst the council decide they are going to assess them/ find the money to get the necessary adaptations done? The disabled person is still out of pocket, paying this "fine" whilst waiting for suitable housing. Unfortunately, the government have beggar all sense, about this, as they have not looked at the needs of the disabled, and not used the idea that you and many others have come up with, in that a disabled person, living in an adapted property ought to be exempt from this. My property is adapted to my needs. I have my support network around me, and I would find it incredibly difficult to move. Also, I actually don't see why I should have to move, when I live in a suitable property, or why I should be forced to pay a premium, (contrary to the equalities act!) to live in a property that is perfect for my needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think you might be making unwarranted assumptions PlainTalker. If a 2nd bedroom is required, then it's required isn't it and wouldn't fall under the umbrella of a room that isn't required. If no smaller property suitable property is available, then the onus is surely on the council to provide one, not charge someone extra whilst they are willing but unable to be rehoused due to the councils failure. You are assuming the worst, that a disabled person will be charged when they are unable to move to a smaller suitable property because no such property exists, I see no reason why this should be the case. You don't see why you should live in a property that is suitable but not beyond your needs? Or why you should pay if you want to keep a house with more bedrooms than you reasonably need? If this is applied sensibly as I've just outlined, then continued objection will just be using disability as an excuse, instead of being a valid objection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicken Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think you might be making unwarranted assumptions PlainTalker. If a 2nd bedroom is required, then it's required isn't it and wouldn't fall under the umbrella of a room that isn't required. If no smaller property suitable property is available, then the onus is surely on the council to provide one, not charge someone extra whilst they are willing but unable to be rehoused due to the councils failure. You are assuming the worst, that a disabled person will be charged when they are unable to move to a smaller suitable property because no such property exists, I see no reason why this should be the case. You don't see why you should live in a property that is suitable but not beyond your needs? Or why you should pay if you want to keep a house with more bedrooms than you reasonably need? If this is applied sensibly as I've just outlined, then continued objection will just be using disability as an excuse, instead of being a valid objection. http://www.housing.org.uk/policy/wel...droom_tax.aspx . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 The url is malformed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonjon Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 They should introduce an "excessive private land tax". If people have more land than they need they should pay a tax on it.. Why should they? If a private land owner has bought the land then what's the issue? Now if they were renting the land from the council then fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 If they are renting the land then they are already paying for it. Now if they were being given the land as a form of social benefit then fair enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAxe Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Perhaps if the council didn't sell houses to people that "have the right!" then there wouldn't be all this mess. Ex council house up the road is now privately rented out to a lady of the night. Why was this allowed to happen? Seriously the house has been my home for over 10 years now and I am not giving it up for anybody. Those saying "you should give it up for a family bla bla" you are all retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donuticus Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Nobody is being made to pay any extra and nobody is being evicted. What is happening is that the government is saying that we will no longer pay housing benefits for properties that are larger than would be suitable for your minimal needs. If a single person wants to rent a property with 3 bedrooms, they are free to do so, but should not expect to receive benefits that cover all of the rent. The welfare state is finally beginning to provide people with what they NEED as opposed to what they WANT. About time too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 They should introduce an "excessive private land tax". If people have more land than they need they should pay a tax on it.. Ever heard of stamp duty....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicken Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Bedroom Tax 165 2683 16 Welfare reforms will cut the amount of benefit that people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home – find out how this will affect people. The Government has said that it will introduce new size criteria for housing benefit claims in social housing. This will apply from April 2013 to tenants of working age. The power to do this is contained in the Welfare Reform Act, which received Royal Assent on 8th March 2012. What do the changes mean? The size criteria in the social rented sector will restrict housing benefit to allow for one bedroom for each person or couple living as part of the household, with the following exceptions: Children under 16 of same gender expected to share Children under 10 expected to share regardless of gender Disabled tenant or partner who needs non resident overnight carer will be allowed an extra bedroom Who will be affected? All claimants who are deemed to have at least one spare bedroom will be affected. This includes: Separated parents who share the care of their children and who may have been allocated an extra bedroom to reflect this. Benefit rules mean that there must be a designated ‘main carer’ for children (who receives the extra benefit) Couples who use their ‘spare’ bedroom when recovering from an illness or operation Foster carers because foster children are not counted as part of the household for benefit purposes Parents whose children visit but are not part of the household Families with disabled children Disabled people including people living in adapted or specially designed properties. How much will people lose? The cut will be a fixed percentage of the Housing Benefit eligible rent. The Government has said that this will be set at 14% for one extra bedroom and 25% for two or more extra bedrooms. The Government’s impact assessment shows that those affected will lose an average of £14 a week. Housing association tenants are expected to lose £16 a week on average. How many people will see their benefit cut? The proposal will affect an estimated 660,000 working-age social tenants – 31% of existing working-age housing benefit claimants in the social sector. The majority of these people have only one extra bedroom. How will the bedroom tax operate under Universal Credit? There are some differences between how the bedroom tax will operate under housing benefit (from April 2013) and under Universal Credit when it is introduced. These differences are summarised in the table below. From April 2013 Under Universal Credit Those over State Pension Credit age will not be affected, including where one member of a couple is over. Mixed age couples - both will need to be over pension age to not be affected by the bedroom tax. Those where one is already in receipt of Pension Credit will however be protected. Non-dependant deductions (NDD): six separate rates varying by income and under 25s on benefit are exempt. One, flat-rate Housing Cost Contribution (HCC). All under 21s are exempt from HCC. Non-dependants: couples get one room between them. They pay the NDD unless both are exempt. Each adult non-dependent gets a room. Each pays the HCC unless exempt. Lodgers get a room but income is taken into account and deducted pound for pound from benefit apart from first £20. No room allowance but any income from lodgers is disregarded. In joint tenancy cases the bedroom tax can still apply. Bedroom tax not applied in joint- tenancy cases. Protection on death for up to 52 weeks. Benefits run-on for 3 months. 13 week protection where the tenant could previously afford the rent and Housing Benefit has not been claimed in the last 52 weeks. Size criteria applies immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts