Has the bedroom tax failed?

[Ms Macbeth 73]

[/b]

Being moved out of London and made to live 'up North,' where you have no family or friends to support you?

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2018 at 03:11 ----------

 

There has always been a shortage of council accommodation, especially after the war when loads of houses were bombed or unfit to live in.

 

New build council houses were much sought after and you thought yourself very priviledged to get one. You had to undergo a number of interviews to obtain one, to make sure you were the right kind of person.

 

I have never understood why the council started knocking down 2 bedroomed Council houses, saying nobody wanted them. As far as I'm aware there's always been more applicants than houses.

 

Park Hill and Hyde Park flats were very popular when they were first built, they had great facilities built into them. You'll still find people who loved living there.

 

My in laws left London with their eldest two children after WWII as they couldn't get housing. Lots of people made those sorts of choices.

 

There hasn't always been a shortage of council housing, at least not in many areas of the north. Ask anyone who worked for Sheffield council around the millennium, there were lots of vacant properties. This is one of the reports that discusses demolition. None of it was done on a whim. Many flats and maisonettes were empty for long periods.

http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/CeListDocuments.aspx?MID=836&F=1-5%20Balancing%20Supply-Demand%24embed%24.htm&DF=10%2F09%2F2003&A=1&R=0

I also remember Kirklees bussing people from the overcrowded south to view their empty houses, and some people made the move.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/aug/29/guardiansocietysupplement

Edited April 16, 2018 by Ms Macbeth

[Calahonda 11]

But RTB did not create or reduce housing stock.

 

You need to be a lateral thinker to understand this. Had the RTB scheme not been available and some council tenants opted for the gift deposit to buy in the private sector, this would have freed up council housing stock and kick started the private sector building programme. How would this not have increased the housing stock?

[Ms Macbeth 73]

I split up with my wife and applied for a council flat one bedroom I was given a two bedroom maisonet and told i would have to pay bedroom tax the one bedroom and bedsits are for the unemployed .... Money making racket

 

If you were earning enough to pay full rent, then you aren't paying any 'bedroom tax', you can live in any sized property you can afford! However if you were a single person on benefits, living in a two bedroomed property, your housing benefit would be reduced, unless you were over state pension age.

 

'Bedroom tax' isn't a tax. It's a name given, by the media, to a reduction in housing benefit for people of working age. How many more times does it have to be explained?

[grand 10]

its a total shambles bedroom tax nobody should be forced out of there home end of

[Ms Macbeth 73]

You need to be a lateral thinker to understand this. Had the RTB scheme not been available and some council tenants opted for the gift deposit to buy in the private sector, this would have freed up council housing stock and kick started the private sector building programme. How would this not have increased the housing stock?

 

It could have done, but I believe councils would still have demolished unpopular properties and those that were costly to repair. RTB improved some estates, mixed tenure stopped them becoming concentrations of unemployment and poverty. But that tended to happen in the most desirable areas, leaving little choice for future applicants.

 

No one could have foreseen the fall in house prices then the huge rise that followed, which raised the demand for social housing once again. It's time the RTB was withdrawn in England IMO, as it has been in Scotland and Wales.

[ez8004 10]

its a total shambles bedroom tax nobody should be forced out of there home end of

 

Not really their home if they have been given it in the first place. The council are well within their rights to allocate properties efficiently in terms of occupancy and number of bedrooms. No one should feel entitled to having a property let alone more bedrooms than they actually need.

[apelike 10]

The council are well within their rights to allocate properties efficiently in terms of occupancy and number of bedrooms.

 

But are they? as I dont think that is or has ever been the case and they certainly cannot discriminate.

[grand 10]

Not really their home if they have been given it in the first place. The council are well within their rights to allocate properties efficiently in terms of occupancy and number of bedrooms. No one should feel entitled to having a property let alone more bedrooms than they actually need.

 

think someone has been brainwashed

[BHRemovals 10]

once again the whole system was poorly thought out.

[the_bloke 17]

What if they are being "downsized" to an area of the city where they don't have the support of their family/friends?

 

And by definition they won't have funds to travel to them.. they then end up isolated and alone in an unfamiliar area with no support.

 

Then they can decide to pay the bedroom tax and pay the premium to stay where they want to stay.

 

If you want to be picky about where you want your next council house to be, it's your problem not SCC's, which is what I said before.

[barleycorn 10]

once again the whole system was poorly thought out.

It was a good idea just very poorly executed, for a number of reasons. Primarily there were not, nor are there still, enough houses/flats etc for people to downsize into in the appropriate areas. For people in this situation there should have been no decrease in their HB allowance.

[leviathan13 348]

The problem with council housing is that many people see it as a right and that they are entitled to what they want. I've had many dealings with council housing over time and know people who work in that sector, so i'd like to think that i have an idea about what's going on with it.

 

With regards to older people not being subject to the extra charge - that's all well and good, but since the bedroom reforms the dynamics of what is now desirable have changed. Before, 3 bedroom houses were in demand. However, more people are now wanting to downsize because they can't afford it. So, 2 bedrooms have become more desirable. There is still a demand for 3 beds, but the demand has shifted somewhat.

 

So, yes, the older person would be downsizing from 3 to 2 bed, but they will be moving to another desirable property. And, you can bet your life it will be to a desirable area, too.

 

The council's aim is to let properties fairly - why is letting a single person have a property big enough for a family fair? I know they're already in a family sized property, but the person needs to be less selfish. Social housing is a precious commodity that has been abused over time, often mostly by many who don't pay in to the system.

 

If everyone paid their rent, the council would have more money to invest in it's stock and, maybe, they would be able to relax the amount of bedrooms people can have. But the housing policy isn't something that can change overnight; it takes years to review, agree and implement and it's looked at by everyone from Cabinet to tenants reps.

 

I don't have an answer, i just feel that it's people's selfishness that leads to hostility towards the council. Sometimes they do mess up, but also people have to take responsibility for their own actions.