Council rent arrears?

[BrandNewGuy]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They have no solutions BS. That's why some of

> these tenants are getting into arrears. There is

> something called 'a discretionary housing

> payment'. That is a fund the government allowed

> LAs to set up to help those in difficulty with the

> tax.

They don't "pay the tax". They have a reduction in benefit.

[PokerTime]

Splitting hairs Brand New Guy. You try paying ?14 out of ?71 weekly jobseekers allowance and see how you get on. I don't know what planet you think the disabled and unemployed live on.

Fazer, tenants are allowed to rent out a room but if they are on benefits they get into a different mess where the lodger is classed as a second income, and other benefits can be affected. Also the second rooms in council flats are so small that they are really only suitable for children (ie, a single/ bunk bed) and one wardrobe. That is why disabled people use them as storage rooms for wheelchairs/ equipment, or an occasional room for a carer to stay overnight. Council properties were designed to house couples with a child/ children or single adults/ childless couples. But under the governemnt legislation, two teenage boys (anyone under 16) are expected to share a room like that. You try being a six foot 15 year old sleeping on the top tier of a bunk bed.

Non de Plume, housing benefit is already means tested. If someone is working and getting partial HB and their salary rises, their HB goes down. The fact is that the overwhleming majority of people in social housing are either on low incomes or no income (i.e. eldery, unemployed, disabled). I absolutely agree regarding the economy supporting low wages, arms, landlords etc, but the solution is not to make the poorest poorer, the solution is to find a more ralistic balance between wages and the cost of housing and rent in the private sector (and to do something to create more permanent jobs with living wages). You don't have to go back very far to see where things are headed if the current trajectory continues as it has done for the past 30 years.

[binary_star]

Sorry, yes there is no 'tax' there is a reduction in the housing benefit already given. However, what in principle does this mean for council tenants? Does the council say we want you to move to smaller accommodation but we can't provide anything smaller? Seems counter-intuitive.

It looks like there are, in real terms, two options:

A. You have the option to move somewhere cheaper

B. You have to stay where you are and pay extra

If the latter, surely this is not the fault of the tenant if the councils area able to provide smaller/cheaper accommodation?

[PokerTime]

The council doesn't say anything. The onus is on the tenant to ask to be moved if they can't afford the shortfall, at which the council can either offer something, or it cannot. There is another consequence too. Councils in some regions now have property sitting empty because there are no tenants they can move in there. And other authorities are mid way through house building programmes of family sized accomodation to now finding they need to build one bedroomed properties instead.

[BrandNewGuy]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Splitting hairs Brand New Guy. You try paying ?14

> out of ?71 weekly jobseekers allowance and see how

> you get on. I don't know what planet you think the

> disabled and unemployed live on.

No it's not. If you name something according to your political persuasion (the "bedroom tax"), then you can be expected to be picked up on it. And as I said before, "You can argue that that reduction is wrong". If you want to know what I think (FWIW), the reduction attempted to right a wrong ? subsidised empty rooms ? but has been poorly implemented. If proper alternative accommodation is available locally and if the disabled or sick who need extra space are exempted and if there is a reasonable transition time for tenants, I have no great objection to the reduction in benefit.

[TE44]

http://content.met.police.uk/News/The-MPS-and-six-London-boroughs-combat-begging-and-rough-sleeping/1400022279369/1257246745756

If before implementing the bed room tax, thee offer of smaller places to move, and help with moving, i believe there

would have been many people glad to move, especially now many people have to choose between warmth or food.

And as for the ones who may endd up on the streets, Southark have teamed up with other boroughs and the met. No worries there then.

http://www.dorseteye.com/north/articles/atos-kpmg-and-the-nhs-be-afraid-be-very-afraid

as for atos, anyone who believes they are not responsible, I wonder if they'd be fine about them moving

being involved with patient care data. What a disgrace.

[TE44]

SteveUK1978 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Clearly an emotive issue so not trying to make

> light of it at all - but I suspect the ?16m

> arrears has not arisen since April '13 when the

> "bedroom tax" was introduced which was implied in

> the first response to the OP.

http://www.southwarkcarers.org.uk/news/50000-people-now-facing-eviction-bedroom-tax/

I think you'l find it has.

[PokerTime]

Bedroom Tax is the phrase coined BNG. But you do seem to understand the problems it faces through implementation.

I'm not interested in political pursuasions on this issue because housing is something everyone needs and therefore in itself is not political. Many people living with mortgages (and let's remember you don't actually own your home until you pay that off with interest) would also have something to say about the percentage of household income that absorbs, and the amount of income that needs to be earned to pay it. The same is true for those in private rented accomodation.

What the system overall is very good at doing, and this is where the media, used by politicians does come into play, is in deflecting frustration away from successive government and deregulation (and the other things that have created the exepnsive private housing market), and turning it into a politics of envy. The low waged and poor are not responsible for housing inflation, any more than they are responsible for the deficit, bankers fixing Libor ratings, offshore tax havens, foreign invasions etc etc.

There is a sensible debate to be had about creating a system that works for all, but government aren't interested in that debate, nor the media per se. There are no short terms solutions and it's worth saying also that these HB reforms haven't saved the taxpayer a single penny. All they have done is shifted people around a little, shifted some into more expensive private accomodation, shifted others into very expensive B&B, caused some to commit suicide and left many in severe financial hardship. There has to be a better way than that.

[BrandNewGuy]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bedroom Tax is the phrase coined BNG.

By the Labour Party. And it's not a tax.

I agree with you that the housing system needs a serious overhaul, but I don't see any political party doing that.

[PokerTime]

It wasn't the Labour Party who came up with it, but a Peer called Baron Best who is a crossbencher (meaning no individual political party affiliation). He has spent a lifetime working in and writing about housing. His knowledge and understanding of the subject is expert and extensive.

I don't see any political party doing anything either. Mainly because there is no solution without regulating the private housing sector to slow inflation of prices and rents, outside of a mass affordable house building programme (on the scale of the post WW1 programme).

My view is that all governments see the equity in the ever booming housing market as the solution to the coming pensions crisis. Even now, more than half of all welfare is spent on the over 65s. That is going to grow and whereas most of todays over 65s who worked, did pay into employer based pension schemes, the majority of todays workforce have no pension scheme in place. They will be completely reliant on state pensions and benefits. Raising the pension age is going to have little effect imo as many will be unfit for the jobs they do by 65 anyway, and find themselves on other types of benefit until they retire.

We have to get more jobs in the economy, and they have to be a wider range of jobs, better paid, and more secure long term. That is the ONLY effective way to reduce the welfare bill. I don't think any government in the past 30 years has worked hard enough at that.

There's a reason why London, Liverpool, Glasgow and many major cities have social housing near their centre or in areas that are now prime targets for gentrification. They were homes originally built to house the low waged workers of the docks and other centres of industry, centres that existed for 100 years or more. We've lost them all and nothing has replaced them. The people who live in generational unemployment now are the same people where 50 years ago, son followed father into the same job, often a secure job. Until we have politicians who show an interest in the connections between social and economic history we are not going to see any intelligent attempt from government to make the kind of changes that lead to long term solutions to anything.

[TE44]

The last few years there have been many people affected by flooding, houses become inhabitable again only to be flooded again. I realise many homeless need more than just shelter, but I would think many would jump at the chance

if given a choice to help others using skills they may have, or learning new. In a situation where people are evacuated

temporary places could be built for these workers, it would bring people together who feel isolated, skills would be shared. This may not be a good example but I feel amongst all the economics of housing, is the loss of community, most people I know up north in social housing would gladly move into a smaller place, apart from the fact there's not enough smaller homes, they do not want to move from there community as many are older and some never ventured far from there towns.

I feel goverments offer no solution and have not created jobs.It is very off putting for the young even those with jobs that after paying there travel costs it would be impossible to move from there family home, when on minimum wage. I

couldn't imagine it, I

[TE44]

Oops on phone, I think its sad this goverment are demonising people it seems to be stoppinh them seing the potential,

I know the example I gave above, giving people the choice to help, helping them to feel good about themselves and part of something In relation to the link I put up before about Southwark Council, will real help be offered to homeless people or will it be a case of just moving them on.

[PokerTime]

Now they plan to go after those who work as well.....(the comments at the bottom of the article are a useful read too)

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/dwp-housing-benefit-will-be-sanctioned/7002330.article?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Ocean+Media+&utm_campaign=3755766_IH-TENANCIES-030314-NE&dm_i=1HH2%2C28HYU%2CEV2PU8%2C83HRQ%2C1

[TE44]

I heard about this Poker Time, but couldn't find anything on it, thanks.

So many changes its hard to keep up.

The universal job match (the official jobs website)where people must prove they've been applying for jobs, also people on zero

hour contracts who need some housing benefit help, has been called into question over alleged fraud of

a the company options 4 families, the police are invesigating this.

A merseyside MP has demanded an inquiry, but has been told by the employment minister, goverment do not keep a

record of complaints made against this site.

http://www.frankfield.com/latest-news/articles/news.aspx?p=102635