View Full Version : Bedroom tax
piratelassie
05-Mar-13, 00:54
Another tax imposed from Westminster, I,m led to believe that 91% of Scottish MPs voted against the bedroom tax, oh well never mind.
Hopefully this will do for Cameron what the Poll Tax did for Maggie...
Hopefully this will do for Cameron what the Poll Tax did for Maggie...
nah shes still alive Alrock.....
It's this simple; if I can't afford to have a spare room, why in hell am I paying for someone elses?
It's this simple; if I can't afford to have a spare room, why in hell am I paying for someone elses?
Technically it isn't a 'tax' it's a cut in housing benefit for people with what is deemed a 'spare bedroom'. So the low-paid in receipt of housing benefit will have it cut by up to £20 a week for each 'empty' bedroom. I say 'empty' because the DWP only count it as occupied if it is occupied by a family member.
Because that 'someone else' will be:
foster parents (because foster children are not considered 'family' by the DWP),
families of servicemen (because they are deemed not to be permanently resident in their family home by the DWP) so they will come home from wherever they have been deployed and have no family home to go to,
the disabled who need an extra room for special equipment,
the disabled who need an extra room for carers to stay overnight,
the elderly who have lived in a house for decades raising their families and made it their family home who should not be moved miles away from their family and friends,
and because National Housing Federation figures, in England for example, show that 180,000 social tenants are 'under-occupying‘ two-bed homes – but only 68,000 one-bed social homes are available.
The tories know all this. This is a money making measure because they know a large proportion of those affected will have no choice but to lose the money because there is nowhere for them to move to.
Theory:
It's this simple; if I can't afford to have a spare room, why in hell am I paying for someone elses?
Practice:
Technically it isn't a 'tax' it's a cut in housing benefit for people with what is deemed a 'spare bedroom'. So the low-paid in receipt of housing benefit will have it cut by up to £20 a week for each 'empty' bedroom. I say 'empty' because the DWP only count it as occupied if it is occupied by a family member.
Because that 'someone else' will be:
foster parents (because foster children are not considered 'family' by the taxman),
families of servicemen (because they are deemed not to be permanently resident in their family home by the taxman) so they will come home from wherever they have been deployed and have no family home to go to,
the disabled who need an extra room for special equipment,
the disabled who need an extra room for carers to stay overnight,
the elderly who have lived in a house for decades raising their families and made it their family home who should not be moved miles away from their family and friends,
and because National Housing Federation figures, in England for example, show that 180,000 social tenants in are 'under-occupying‘ two-bed homes – but only 68,000 one-bed social homes are available.
The tories know all this. This is a money making measure because they know a large proportion of those affected will have no choice but to lose the money because there is nowhere for them to move to.
& to think... I've been accused of having some wacky & unworkable ideas... Only difference is that I'm not in a position to implement them.
equusdriving
05-Mar-13, 11:08
Another tax imposed from Westminster, I,m led to believe that 91% of Scottish MPs voted against the bedroom tax, oh well never mind.
But at least on a happy note :DHer Majesty Our Gracious Queen is on the mend:D
theres also the point that this applies to tenants in social housing only. If your neighbour is also on benefits and even if he has more rooms in his house albeit privately let then he won't be penalised!
if we was to change the extra room with council or private landlord permission to make it into a wet room or on suite that would take away the extra bedroom so house would then be down sized cheaper than having to move and i cant see why we cant do it then we get to stay in our house that been the family home for many yrs ???
its only council & social housing thats affected. If you have a private landlord it doesn't change and you will still get the same benefit. I saw somewhere on the net suggesting the thinking behind this was that if private lets were also taken into this then a lot of "notice to quit" letters would have been sent out thus making many private tenants homeless
But at least on a happy note :DHer Majesty Our Gracious Queen is on the mend:D
yep and how may spare bedroom s has she ...........all over the country .....:)
yep and how may spare bedroom s has she ...........all over the country .....:)
Yes, in all her taxpayer funded residences...
None of the above changes my mind.
if we was to change the extra room with council or private landlord permission to make it into a wet room or on suite that would take away the extra bedroom so house would then be down sized cheaper than having to move and i cant see why we cant do it then we get to stay in our house that been the family home for many yrs ???Permission would be refused
Disabled and people with special care needs aside I totally agree with the plan.The issue is as has been previously pointed out is that there is a severe lack of one bed rental properties on the go.
tonkatojo
05-Mar-13, 13:33
Here's a loop hole it might work for some, Under the 1985 Housing Act, section 326 relating to over-crowding, bedroom floor space between 50 and 70 square feet is described as not being fit to be occupied by a person.
Read More http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news//2013/03/05/kenton-bar-man-s-found-a-box-room-tax-loophole-72703-32925168/?campaign=Newcastle_email_chronicleliveemail:20130 305#ixzz2MfSk8VhO
Here's a loop hole it might work for some, Under the 1985 Housing Act, section 326 relating to over-crowding, bedroom floor space between 50 and 70 square feet is described as not being fit to be occupied by a person.Read More http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news//2013/03/05/kenton-bar-man-s-found-a-box-room-tax-loophole-72703-32925168/?campaign=Newcastle_email_chronicleliveemail:20130 305#ixzz2MfSk8VhOI should've thought that all social housing will comply with the applicable regs.
Permission would be refused
No it wouldn't:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2013/feb/26/tenants-exempted-bedroom-tax-reclassify
Green_not_greed
05-Mar-13, 14:08
I don't think they've though it through. It'll simply encourage those on housing benefit to breed......
No it wouldn't:http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2013/feb/26/tenants-exempted-bedroom-tax-reclassifyWell that is surprising, looks like a bit of a scam to me.What will be done with the dead space I wonder, a padlock and bolt maybe?
Well that is surprising, looks like a bit of a scam to me.What will be done with the dead space I wonder, a padlock and bolt maybe?
Provided the owner of the building says it is not a bedroom, there is nothing the bean counters can do. It can be a storage room, a dining room, whatever they choose.
Yes I suppose you are correct, in fact as long as the association is agreeable there is nowt the government can do
When this does happen it will only apply to people who are of Working Age. So if you are retired. ie 65 years or over it will not affect you.
M Swanson
05-Mar-13, 16:56
Too right Kodiak and let's not forget the £300M discretionary fund, provided by the government to local authorities, to be used for disabled people in need. Another fact overlooked.
Too right Kodiak and let's not forget the £300M discretionary fund, provided by the government to local authorities, to be used for disabled people in need. Another fact overlooked.
Aye but if you don't actually ask for the discretionary fund payments form, you won't be told about it nor will you be invited to apply for it. Last time i asked about it i was quizzed as to how i knew about it and who told me to apply for it, they weren't at all chuffed about me asking in the council office a few years back.
M Swanson
05-Mar-13, 17:34
Well, if the disabled person doesn't have access to newspapers, television, computer; a social worker, family, friends, etc., I can see that may be a problem. The fund is obviously available, to the tune of £300M and in your case, the Government can't be blamed, but the attitude of your local Council was at fault. Did you complain?
cptdodger
05-Mar-13, 18:43
Aye but if you don't actually ask for the discretionary fund payments form, you won't be told about it nor will you be invited to apply for it. Last time i asked about it i was quizzed as to how i knew about it and who told me to apply for it, they weren't at all chuffed about me asking in the council office a few years back.
I have to agree with Shaggy on this one. I have been dealing with the CSA (Child Support Agency) for twenty years now, which is also a government department. Now, along the same lines as this discretionary fund, somebody just happened to mention that I might be entitled to what is known as an "advance payment" which means that, the CSA would pay me any arrears outstanding and they would then carry on collecting the money from my EX. Like Shaggy, I was given the 3rd degree as to how I found out about this. It is now (oddly enough) stated on their website. This was last October, and my case is now with the complaints review team, after I complained to Iain Duncan Smith.
The point being, this "advance payment" has been around since at least 2005, after looking into my case, thoroughly since day one back in 1993, they have confirmed that I have been constantly lied to, fobbed off, given the runaround and so on. My "children" were 5 and 10 when this started, they are now 25 and 30. And this, as I said, is a government department.
I'm afraid, in my case, and Shaggys, access to the media would not have helped.
billmoseley
05-Mar-13, 20:33
phew and there was me thinking i was gonna have to pay tax everytime i got amorous with Mrs M
My sister in law is in a four bedroomed council house. She has three children 7, 4 (girls) and 3(boy). She will have to pay an amount for a spare bedroom which she doesnt use because her horrible ex hisband may turn up and the wee ones might let him in before she is downstairs. As he has made threats to kill her and is awaiting trial for this you can understand she is not keen on that. She has asked for a move to anywhere in the local area. She has been told there is a shortage of three bedroomed houses. There was yhe potential for a house swap but that fell through. Despite being prepared to move, despite trying to organise a move and despite tge council not being able to help her she still has to pay the additional housing charge for her 'spare' bedroom. She has always worked and paid taxes until her violent, controlling abusive ex husband left a year ago. How is that fair?
My sister in law is in a four bedroomed council house. She has three children 7, 4 (girls) and 3(boy). She will have to pay an amount for a spare bedroom which she doesnt use because her horrible ex hisband may turn up and the wee ones might let him in before she is downstairs. As he has made threats to kill her and is awaiting trial for this you can understand she is not keen on that. She has asked for a move to anywhere in the local area. She has been told there is a shortage of three bedroomed houses. There was yhe potential for a house swap but that fell through. Despite being prepared to move, despite trying to organise a move and despite tge council not being able to help her she still has to pay the additional housing charge for her 'spare' bedroom. She has always worked and paid taxes until her violent, controlling abusive ex husband left a year ago. How is that fair?
Can she not just give the children a room each, then there's no unused rooms?
Not a nice situation regarding the hubby, but on brighter note the if the "tax" works it should surely free up more 3 bedroom houses and make the chance of a move more likely?
Can she not just give the children a room each, then there's no unused rooms?
Not a nice situation regarding the hubby, but on brighter note the if the "tax" works it should surely free up more 3 bedroom houses and make the chance of a move more likely?
No because children under 16 of the same sex are required to share a bedroom. Therefore she only qualifies for a three bedroomed property.
The irony is that if she went and rented a private property with six bedrooms at a rent of £300 per week they would pay housing benefit with no bother at all! There is insufficient stock of social housing - full stop. To implement this policy when people cannot move into smaller properties because there is not enough is immoral. The only answer is to pay up - so pay the extra and buy less food, dont heat your house properly or get into arrears and face eviction. And this comes in at the same time that millionaires get a tax cut - oh and George Osborne refuses to cap bankers bonuses to only the equivalent of a years salary. Arent the priorities a bit skew whiff?
There is insufficient stock of social housing - full stop.
And we all know who sold off the nation's social housing stock and disallowed councils from using the money raised to build more, don't we.
And we all know who sold off the nation's social housing stock and disallowed councils from using the money raised to build more, don't we.
Oooh goodness - I dont think I can remember - perhaps you could remind me?;)
No because children under 16 of the same sex are required to share a bedroom. Therefore she only qualifies for a three bedroomed property.
The irony is that if she went and rented a private property with six bedrooms at a rent of £300 per week they would pay housing benefit with no bother at all! There is insufficient stock of social housing - full stop. To implement this policy when people cannot move into smaller properties because there is not enough is immoral. The only answer is to pay up - so pay the extra and buy less food, dont heat your house properly or get into arrears and face eviction. And this comes in at the same time that millionaires get a tax cut - oh and George Osborne refuses to cap bankers bonuses to only the equivalent of a years salary. Arent the priorities a bit skew whiff?
Fair enough. I actually agree with the policy in principle, but yes it, like many, should be altered to prevent injustices like this.
People having houses provided to them by the state shouldn't have spare bedrooms as a right, but those willing (and unable) to downsize shouldn't be punished.
And we all know who sold off the nation's social housing stock and disallowed councils from using the money raised to build more, don't we.
But who chose to buy them? That's democracy. Power to the people and all that.
But who chose to buy them? That's democracy. Power to the people and all that.
That is not the point, and you know it. The stock was sold off, and councils were deliberately prevented from building replacement stock with the money.
And we all know who sold off the nation's social housing stock and disallowed councils from using the money raised to build more, don't we.
And who hasn't done anything about replacing it since?
I think the right to buy was a good thing. The wrong was not that people were given the right to buy their council house but that the money was not used to ensure that there was enough social housing for those who could not buy for whatever reasons. Most people in the situation where they have a spare room are not given it as a right but have it as a result of either the only housing stock available was one with a spare room or their family circumstances have changed. So divorce, bereavement, children leaving home and on and on. Theone - my sister in laws story is not unusual. The vast majority of the people with spare rooms dont have a spare room - it is used for something - whether that is for a child away at uni who comes home in the holidays, for a wife to sleep seperately from her husband who has health problems which affect the quality of her sleep, for a carer, for children living with an ex partner to come and stay and on and on it goes. We will see what happens with the possibility of the judicial review which is being discussed... I would hope that the government think again and soon.
That is not the point, and you know it. The stock was sold off, and councils were deliberately prevented from building replacement stock with the money.
That might not be your point, but it's still valid.
Nobody was forced to buy their houses, they chose (en masse) to do so.
Although not rebuilding sufficient social housing was wrong, do you honestly believe that giving a generation of tennants the right and ability to invest in their own brick and mortar was not a good thing?
Even the most robust conservative/thatcher hater can see this was hardly an enforced change against the popular opinion?
phew and there was me thinking i was gonna have to pay tax everytime i got amorous with Mrs M
relax, we'll all have a whip round for you......heres 2p to start with.....anyone else?? [lol]
Well, if the disabled person doesn't have access to newspapers, television, computer; a social worker, family, friends, etc., I can see that may be a problem. The fund is obviously available, to the tune of £300M and in your case, the Government can't be blamed, but the attitude of your local Council was at fault. Did you complain?
I didn't actually think of complaining back then, i was just happy to get the payment tbh
Most people in the situation where they have a spare room are not given it as a right but have it as a result of either the only housing stock available was one with a spare room or their family circumstances have changed. So divorce, bereavement, children leaving home and on and on. Theone - my sister in laws story is not unusual. The vast majority of the people with spare rooms dont have a spare room - it is used for something - whether that is for a child away at uni who comes home in the holidays, for a wife to sleep seperately from her husband who has health problems which affect the quality of her sleep, for a carer, for children living with an ex partner to come and stay and on and on it goes.
And I agree 100% that people in such situations shouldn't be punished.
Again, I think the basis of the idea is sound, it has just not been thought through well enough, or controlled correctly witin it's original intent. Much like the child benefit changes. Laziness as opposed to incompetence.
And who hasn't done anything about replacing it since?
Successive Governments have failed to build enough social housing however it is getting worse.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/10/sharp-drop-new-affordable-homes
And I agree 100% that people in such situations shouldn't be punished.
Again, I think the basis of the idea is sound, it has just not been thought through well enough, or controlled correctly witin it's original intent. Much like the child benefit changes. Laziness as opposed to incompetence.
I know you agree theone - I truly am not suggesting that you think people should be punished. I disagree about the original intent. Its intent is to be part of the bigger welfare reforms which are designed to further Conserviative ideology of smaller welfare state and public sector and lower taxes and to do this they have placed the burden of deficit reduction onto the poorest and weakest in society whilst allowing the rich and the powerful to continue with little effect.
piratelassie
06-Mar-13, 01:18
Will the Windsors be paying bedroom tax on their 240 odd spare bedrooms? And thats only Buck House.
Will the Windsors be paying bedroom tax on their 240 odd spare bedrooms? And thats only Buck House.
I'm sure they will if they claim for housing benefit.
Its intent is to be part of the bigger welfare reforms which are designed to further Conserviative ideology of smaller welfare state and public sector and lower taxes and to do this they have placed the burden of deficit reduction onto the poorest and weakest in society whilst allowing the rich and the powerful to continue with little effect.
I've never voted conservative and, although a conservative government is putting them in place, I believe such moves were always going to happen.
The benefit system is a huge burden on the taxpayer and cuts like this are going to be acceptable to, if not popular with, the vast majority of taxpayers.
As I've said above, I think the original intent was to "persuade" those in underutilised social housing to downsize, with the ultimate aim of fixing a problem whilst saving some money. It was just implemented in the wrong way, which left it open to cause innocent, undeserving victims. I don't believe this was the original intent. Does anybody really agree that somebody who doesn't NEED a spare room should have one provided by the taxpayer?
The conservatives implemented this, but I dont think Labour would/will remove it. Unpopular (with the majority) in principle, it aint.
relax, we'll all have a whip round for you......heres 2p to start with.....anyone else?? [lol]
The other half sent me down the harbour the other day to ply my trade, I came back with £51 and 50p. Outraged, she asked who gave you the 50p? I said "they all did" :eek:
That might not be your point, but it's still valid.
Nobody was forced to buy their houses, they chose (en masse) to do so.
Although not rebuilding sufficient social housing was wrong, do you honestly believe that giving a generation of tennants the right and ability to invest in their own brick and mortar was not a good thing?
Even the most robust conservative/thatcher hater can see this was hardly an enforced change against the popular opinion?
Again that's not the point I'm making. Please put your strawman away.
Social housing was sold off, at knockdown prices, and councils were actively prevented from building replacement social housing stock. That left millions of families who could not afford to buy renting in the private sector at extortionate rents. Their housing benefits had to increase to cover that rise in rents. So now we are in a situation where housing benefit bill is running out of control and most of that housing benefit goes straight to the pockets of private landlords instead of to councils. And let's not forget that a great many who bought their council homes lost them when the crash of the early 90s happened leaving millions in negative equity. You'll find that the majority of old social housing is now in the hands of private landlords who bought to let when the original purchasers couldn't keep up with their mortgages.
Social housing was sold off, at knockdown prices, and councils were actively prevented from building replacement social housing stock. That left millions of families who could not afford to buy renting in the private sector at extortionate rents. Their housing benefits had to increase to cover that rise in rents. So now we are in a situation where housing benefit bill is running out of control and most of that housing benefit goes straight to the pockets of private landlords instead of to councils. And let's not forget that a great many who bought their council homes lost them when the crash of the early 90s happened leaving millions in negative equity. You'll find that the majority of old social housing is now in the hands of private landlords who bought to let when the original purchasers couldn't keep up with their mortgages.
Your posts are always coloured by your politics (fair enough, so are mine) but lets have a look. Knockdown prices; calculation based on how much rent had been paid, the age and cost of upkeep of the property and actual bricks and morter value. Many tennents could have bought their house with what they had paid in rent over the years.
Councils were actively prevented from building new; Er no they weren't. The were allowed to sell off stock on the proviso they used the funds to pay down the massive debt that (mainly) labour controlled councils had run up. Nothing stopped them from building using (for instance ) the savings made on interest payments. However at the time the looney left were spending on all sorts of bizzar social engineering experiments.
'And let's not forget that a great many who bought their council homes lost them when the crash of the early 90s.' If they did, it is not because they bought them, the discounts would have prevented ever going into negative equity. If they borrowed further against the equity they had been given, then maybe.
The discounts given to tennents to buy would have the effect of depressing private value and rents so that has happened since.
You'll find that the majority of old social housing is now in the hands of private landlords who bought to let when the original purchasers couldn't keep up with their mortgages.
Well I can't find that so linky please?
The selling off of the housing stock was a get out of jail free card for some councils.
There is a problem of choice, especially once one has made a house their home, regardless of the number of bedrooms.
As I've said above, I think the original intent was to "persuade" those in underutilised social housing to downsize, with the ultimate aim of fixing a problem whilst saving some money.
That's the thing, it isn't going to save a penny. Those who can't find smaller accommodation in the social sector will be forced to rent in the private sector. Their rents will be higher and consequently any housing benefit paid will be higher.
well isnt it the case those single teenagers with two bedroom houses which the council gave them, ditch the man in their life , they have to go and get pregnant in order to keep their income and we the tax payer has to pay for the baby boom.[disgust]
well isnt it the case those single teenagers with two bedroom houses which the council gave them, ditch the man in their life , they have to go and get pregnant in order to keep their income and we the tax payer has to pay for the baby boom.[disgust]
Lets see...... 26% of households with dependent children in Britain are Single parent households. There are 2 million single parents in Britain today and only 2% of these single parents are aged under 20 and not all of those live in social housing so yeah - that would sort it out! BTW The average age of a single parent is actually 38 years old.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171780_251303.pdf
You'll find that the majority of old social housing is now in the hands of private landlords who bought to let when the original purchasers couldn't keep up with their mortgages.
Well I can't find that so linky please?
I stumbled across this information today on Facebook and with a bit of searching found the link.
"Millionaires have snapped up 40 per cent of ex-council homes in Wandsworth under the right-to-buy scheme, a GMB investigation found.
While ordinary London families are stuck on waiting lists for council houses, wealthy private landlords have bought 6,180 of the south London borough's 15,874 council homes, the union says.
And many of these homes are owned by the same private landlord. Research found that one private landlord owned 93 ex-local authority homes and another owned 32. Almost 1,000 landlords owned more than one.
This means almost 40 per cent of ex-council homes are being rented out to private tenants at a huge profit to the landlords who own them.
GMB union (http://www.facebook.com/pages/GMB-union/114547141895891?group_id=0) general secretary Paul Kenny said: "This investigation lays bare the harsh reality of the exploitation of our social housing stock.
"It shows private businesses making vast profits from the public purse while the people these homes were built for sit on waiting lists that never move.
"To add insult to injury many are using offshore tax havens to avoid paying tax on these profits."
The union used the Land Registry to investigate who the landlords are in 69 blocks of flats in Wandsworth. It turned up a long list of property magnates, estate agents and individual millionaires.
Great Grimsby Labour MP Austin Mitchell (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Austin-Mitchell/103808296324204?group_id=0), who sits on Defend Council Housing (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Defend-Council-Housing/286681334249?group_id=0)'s national committee, said that the "right-to-buy racketeering" is a problem all over the country.
He warned that it is fuelling the housing crisis and said the government needs to act to curb the problem and aim to build 300,000 new affordable homes over the next two years in order to keep the economy in check."
This was a report from this investigation - http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/latest_news/landlords_own_40_ex_council.aspx - I havent read it with any detail Ducati my eyes are too tired.
Does this work both ways?
If you are over occupying do you get extra money?
If not I must say that this is just a tad unfair... more than happy to take but when it comes to giving a totally different story...
I don't see why the councils should pay more money to any private landlord than they charge their own social tenants? e.g. referring to a certain council house in Thurso that was purchased several years ago by the tenant when the council rent charge was £64 a week, and now it's up for private letting by the same person at a whopping £450 p/m. Incidentally that person now owns 3 ex council houses having persuaded his mother to buy her house (he inherited it when she passed away) and he "loaned" the money to his brother so he could buy his. If the govt got their act together and stated that the councils were only allowed to pay the going rate for LHA, there would be no more greedy landlords. There's also the case of when i lived down south for a while, my rent was £350 a month and when i was in between jobs for a few months i claimed housing benefit and was stunned to find they actually paid me the whole LHA of £425 a month so that was £75 a month in my pocket! I queried it to be told it was the way it works. I wondered how many tenants on benefits got their rent paid direct to the landlord and just how many landlords were being honest and giving the tenant the extra?? not many i bet.
I don't see why the councils should pay more money to any private landlord than they charge their own social tenants? e.g. referring to a certain council house in Thurso that was purchased several years ago by the tenant when the council rent charge was £64 a week, and now it's up for private letting by the same person at a whopping £450 p/m. Incidentally that person now owns 3 ex council houses having persuaded his mother to buy her house (he inherited it when she passed away) and he "loaned" the money to his brother so he could buy his. If the govt got their act together and stated that the councils were only allowed to pay the going rate for LHA, there would be no more greedy landlords. There's also the case of when i lived down south for a while, my rent was £350 a month and when i was in between jobs for a few months i claimed housing benefit and was stunned to find they actually paid me the whole LHA of £425 a month so that was £75 a month in my pocket! I queried it to be told it was the way it works. I wondered how many tenants on benefits got their rent paid direct to the landlord and just how many landlords were being honest and giving the tenant the extra?? not many i bet.
When I was in Glasgow in the early 90's I was in a flat at say £400pm, Housing Benefit would only pay £350pm. So I moved to a flat that was only £300pm, thus a saving to them & me of £50pm....
Needless to say, they would only pay £250pm for that one, saving them £100 & still costing me £50
(Figures not accurate just for demonstration purposes only, 20 odd years ago, don't expect me to remember such fine detail)
Similar problem everywhere I have lived with a private landlord, the landlord charged the going rate & housing benefit wouldn't cover it.
When I got into a council house I felt relieved that I had at long last secured myself a home of my own in the secure knowledge that my tenancy was for life & I had 100% housing benefit to rely on in times of need....
The carpet has well & truly been pulled out from under mine & many others feet...
Oh... & another things that annoyed me... They refused to tell you just how much they would pay for a particular property until after you had signed the lease, moved in & had your claim processed, something that would take about 3 months.
Greedy landlords. More socialist ballcocks! Typical yeald on a rental property is 6%. Typical mortgage rate 3-4%. Hardly outrageous profiteering, then of course there is maintainence, appliances, decoration, insurance, etc. And you only need one poor tennent that wrecks the place and you are starting again.
Tugmistress
07-Mar-13, 14:29
Greedy landlords. More socialist ballcocks! Typical yeald on a rental property is 6%. Typical mortgage rate 3-4%. Hardly outrageous profiteering, then of course there is maintainence, appliances, decoration, insurance, etc. And you only need one poor tennent that wrecks the place and you are starting again.
or one poor landlord and they are quids in (no i don't get housing benefit) will find you some pictures of the stuff he is saving money on not doing!
1812018121
Lately I read that the DWP has an underspend of £700million which is being returned to the treasury and Not being used to help those disabled people who are falling victim to the bedroom tax. I also read that a man with a dialysis machine in his spare room is being charged the bedroom tax, a woman whos husband beat her and left her but refuses to take his name off the tennacy agreement is being charged bedroom tax despite the fact she cant move unless he agrees to take his name off the lease. A court action is required and that may take up to a year! I also read about a couple who have two sons one of whom has Autism. Despite the professionals recommending the two boys have separate rooms and rehousing them to ensure that happens they are being charged the bedroom tax because same sex children under 16 should share a room.
But George Osborne not only takes back the underspend, his tax cuts for millionaires come into play in April, he has removed the stamp duty reserve tax which applies to Hedge Funds and will save hedge fund bosses ( many of whom are tory donors) around £145 million a year. All in this together .... Aye....right
Tugmistress
25-Mar-13, 17:01
Urban Myth? ....
if the spare 'bedroom' is under 70 square foot it is exempt from the bedroom tax?
well, what about the person in a 4 bedroom ensuite detached bungalow who is having her mortgage paid due to the fact divorced and on disability since 50years old and now 65 what happens in a case like this. Does the family sell and Government not recoup their losses?
Housing benefit only pays rent not mortgages. So the bedroom tax wont apply in this case
many years ago when i bought a house and lost my job shortly afterwards, i got housing benefit to cover the interest payments on my mortgage. I wasn't asked for any of it back when i started work nor when i sold it later (albeit for a slight loss)
Yeah Shaggy, you used to be able to get your mortgage interest paid. And still can get help. Its called housing costs payments but it isnt the same as housing benefit so the Bedroom tax doesnt apply. You only get the interest on your mortgage payments paid also, not the capital. This used to be quite lucrative when most mortgages were endowment mortgages so you only paid the interest and the rules were changed years ago to make it harder to get help with mortgage payments.
Aye, it helped back then but as i've never had the money to buy again, i've never been in the same position.
I rent privately myself now and even though i have 2 bedrooms here, if i need housing benefit in the future it will be paid in full and with no bedroom tax deductions because im not in social housing accommodation. That to me is another slap on the face to those who are in social housing and on benefit. Private landlords wont have any difficulty filling those harder to let places now because of this tax forcing people to pay up or move out purely because they can't afford to take the hit. It will be worrying for many but i hope the Highland council see sense and work out some way to avert this crisis
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.