Axe the bedroom tax! Poll

It has been projected, by the government that implemented it, to reduce the cost of housing benefit by £500 million (a figure that has already been revised from an initial projected saving of £930 million), but this doesn't take into account the associated costs with doing so.

Numerous housing associations and charities have warned that, after the cost of implementation, it may actually end up costing rather than saving money. They point to factors such as the already existing shortage of smaller social housing, that will be exacerbated by this policy, which will inevitably result in more people being forced to rent privately. The private industry has higher rates of rent, meaning people will be entitled to more of other forms of welfare. Moreover, one must factor in the legal costs of evicting social housing tenants who can no longer pay their rent, the cost of adapting houses for disabled people forced to relocate to smaller houses etc etc. The DWP has itself said "the total amounts that will be spent on implementation of the policy are still being determined as part of the process of assessing what the new burdens will be on local authorities."

BEST POLICY EVAR!!! fuk da scroungers!!!!!!!!

what do you do for a living then?

my dad works for llyods, i dont work atm, i failed al levels n im just at home

Wouldn't they solve all the issues by only applying the 'tax' when the occupants refused to move into a smaller house? That way you avoid the problem of people not actually being able to find anywhere smaller.

I'm afraid that's an entirely false claim. The £500 million figure certainly does take associated costs into account - for example, the extra invested into the discretionary housing payments fund.

A complete red herring. There are indeed a shortage of one bedroom properties insofar as there is a shortage of social housing - always has been, and always will be. There are 2 million people on the waiting list. The reason is quite simple: if you offer housing to people at below-market rents, there will always be a demand to outstrip supply.

Even if - and I by no means think this will be a considerable number - some people feel they have to downsize into the private sector, their position will be taken up by people moving into their social housing space. There is no way in which a scheme which encourages more efficient use of social housing - as this does - will somehow leave less people in social housing. If you want an idea of why so many people on housing benefit are renting privately, the obvious thing to look at may well be those thousands upon thousands of spare bedrooms in the social housing sector!.

As for disabled people in significantly adapted accommodation, there is no reason they would have to more. They are a priority group for discretionary housing payments, which make up the shortfall in their rent. No one, be it the UK Government, local authorities or social landlords have any financial motivation for having such people move and have new homes re-adapted. The idea is ridiculous.

There has been a lot of talk about axing the bedroom tax, yay

It doesn't affect me personally as I currently live with my Mum in a private rented house but we are considering moving and if we move into a council house then we could have to pay bedroom tax so hopefully the tax gets abolished!

So shall we axe the bedroom tax and do your parents pay any and how much is it if they do?

question should be why force it on someone who wants to downsize but can not move because lack of single flats for example .

Grandmother Carly Jensen, 50, has just £9 a week left to live on after settling her utility bills and the £30 per week rent contributions she now has to pay for living in a three-bedroom property.

“This is my home and I don’t want to go. They told me I should take in some lodgers to use the other bedrooms, but why would I want strangers in my home?

No it isn't. The £500m figure certainly does not account for all of the costs of implementing the policy. But you don't need to take my word for it, allow me, once again, to refer you to the statement from the Department of Work and Pensions:

"the total amounts that will be spent on implementation of the policy are still being determined as part of the process of assessing what the new burdens will be on local authorities."

It is lamentable that you should counter what you (falsely) allege to be a red herring, with blatant one of your own. Yes, there is a shortage of all social housing, but the issue is of particular concern when it comes to one bedroom properties. According to the figures from the National Housing Federation, 180,000 people are under-occupying two bedroom social housing properties, but there are only 70,000 one bedroom social housing properties available. You don't need to be a Marcus Du Sautoy to work out that this will leave 110,000 people with no option but to move from their social housing into the private rental market.

Many are living in sheltered or shared accommodation, or temporarily living with friends or relatives.

And yet numerous housing associations and charities have expressed severe concerns about the effect of the bedroom tax on disabled people. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that discretionary housing payments, as the name infers, are discretionary, considered on a case by case basis, and are by no means guaranteed. Or maybe it's because there is a limited annual fund for discretionary housing payments, and the payments weren't designed as a long term replacement for the 14% of housing benefit payments withdrawn from tens of thousands of 'over-occupying' disabled people.

Or perhaps, finally, it's because there have already been cases of disabled people being evicted from their homes as a direct result of the introduction of the bedroom tax. Take your pick.

whose right wing political views would allow people to become homeless and children to starve.

A sensible point , unfortunately OP wouldn't understand.

But the end result is the exact same as if it were a tax. You receive a reduction in benefit because of an additional room on your house. How is that much different to not reducing the amount of benefit a person would receive and instead charging them the exact same amount?

It's a clever tax, but to me, it is a tax. The additional room in your house would cost you money.

It's actually like income tax, where money is taken away from your wages, but in this case it's taken away from your benefit.

That's true of all cost projections (as oppose to actual spending), but ultimately costs to local authorities - if indeed there are any at all - do not form part of the government's cost projections. What you said was incorrect however, suggesting it didn't include any of the costs. In fact, the £930m figure included literally hundreds of millions of pounds in DHP payments.

Also a red herring. DWP projections have shown that a good number of people will prefer to stay where they are and pay the extra. There are people in social housing on housing benefit who can perfectly realistically afford the excess and want to pay it - not to mention those who will choose to share, take money from adult children in a household or whatever else.

There is a limited fund, but there is no suggestion it is unsatisfactory for the job - and even if it was, local authorities can top it up two and a half times. Which is obviously financially prudent if the alternative is adapting a new property.

They are discretionary - yes - and the government is right to monitor that. But I for one fully support that approach. It was taken for a very good reason: that DHPs can be given out on a personalised assessment of need. The alternative is producing screeds of regulation, possibly with ATOS-type assessments, which would, I imagine, entirely fail to cover all possible circumstances where a DHP payment is reasonable. As you'd expect, the government is closely monitoring how this money is used and, should it not be spent effectively, the local authorities will inevitably get it in the neck.

For all the press coverage - and I do monitor it - I've yet to see an actual case of someone who should be entitled to DHPs not getting them. .

The Daily Record, unfortunately, is rarely accurate on these things.

North Lanarkshire Council have since pointed out they are not evicting her, merely that they said they could in a letter. The leader of the council - who this woman doorstepped with journalists and a videocamera in tow, pointed out that she has also refused to apply for DHPs. Which isn't their fault at all. North Lanarkshire has, in fact, topped up its DHP fund well beyond the initial government investment - for whatever reason.

To quote a statement from NLC--

“We have offered every tenant potentially affected by the bedroom tax an opportunity to have a visit or advice by phone.

“The tenant in question has consistently refused to fully engage with us and has repeatedly refused to apply for a discretionary housing payment which may help to alleviate her situation."

She is still in the same home today.

What I said was that once all of the associated costs for implementing the policy (including those not included in the projection) are taken into account, the policy may not end up saving the taxpayer any money. Since the DWP are yet to determine what they believe the overall cost to local authorities will be, neither you nor the government can credibly refute the claims made by various housing associations that the costs will be very substantial.

Then why do the figures provided by 114 local authorities across Britain, revealed after a Freedom of Information request by campaign group False Economy, show that only a few months after the introduction of the policy, more than 50,000 people affected by it have fallen behind on rent and face eviction? Furthermore, why does research by the National Housing Association suggest that another 30,000 people living in housing association properties have fallen behind on rent payments since the 'bedroom tax' came into effect?

The reality is that most people who live in social housing cannot afford to lose 14% of their housing benefit, and they will therefore, whether they want to or not, be forced to move as a result. As I've previously highlighted, since there are far fewer one bedroom social housing properties available than there are people under-occupying two bedroom social housing properties, these people will be forced into the private rental market, will incur higher rents, and thus be entitled to more welfare.

In any case, even if all of the figures I've outlined turned out to be erroneous, and your claim that many social housing tenants "can afford the excess and want to pay it" was true, that would defeat the claimed purpose of the policy i.e. to deal with the issue of under-occupancy of social housing. If most social housing tenants are just going to simply stay were they are, then the policy is ineffective in achieving what it was designed to and should be scrapped on that basis.

It's patently obvious that discretionary housing payments are unsatisfactory for the job; the allocated budget for the payments does not come close to being adequate to replace the withdrawal of 14%-25% of housing benefit from tens of thousands of social tenants. Moreover, it is stated on the government info page that once the discretionary housing payments budget has been allocated in full, all further requests within that year will be turned down. In addition, payments are made for a limited time only (a maximum of 6 months) and although repeat applications can be made, applicants "will be expected to take steps to improve the circumstances that have led to your need for a discretionary housing payment, for example, finding more affordable accommodation." It is very clear from the phrasing of their description that discretionary housing payments are designed as a short-term emergency fund, not as a long-term replacement for withdrawn housing benefit.

http://www.nihe.gov.uk/index/benefits/housingbenefit/discretionary_housing_payments.htm

"A survey of 24 councils published today by the disability charity Papworth Trust reveals three in 10 disabled people affected by the bedroom tax have been refused discretionary housing payments".

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/care/disabled-benefit-claimants-forced-to-cut-food-bills/6527698.article



The story was widely reported by various sources, so if you doubt the Daily Record's credibility maybe you could read one of the others? This one perhaps.

You haven't sourced any of your quotes, but I'm somewhat sceptical about the claims made in your them; why on earth would she "refuse to apply for DHPs", what exactly would her motive be for doing so?

In any case, as I've highlighted above, 30% of the applications for DHPs made by disabled people in 24 councils across the UK have been rejected, so if they haven't already, it's only a matter of time before a disabled person is evicted from their home. According to the same survey (Papworth Trust survey), disabled people are already having to cut back on essentials such as food. Here is a story about such a case. And it''s not just the disabled people put at risk by the policy, but their carers too.

It's a tax.