Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News0 min ago
Is this fair?
83 Answers
10 yrs ago I was declared statutary homeless - I went to the local housing association, and they offered me a flat. Had I not accepted the first place they offered me, I would have been placed at the bottom of the list. It was a dump. I took it. In the past ten years, I have spent a fortune on making it resident friendly. It's a 2 bed lat, and I live alone. The government now plan to tax people who have an empty bedroom. Because I am on benefits I will have £11 a week deducted. My point is that I took what they offered me, there are no 1 bedroom flats on offer, so I have no redress, The government will take £11 a week from me, eveb though they haven't got a 1 bed place to offer me. Is that fair?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by smart1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
It isn't a tax. There is a proposal that people living in properties larger than they need have benefits reduced.
http://www.telegraph....room-tax-reforms.html
http://www.telegraph....room-tax-reforms.html
Yes, I think so. Anyone in public housing who has an 'empty' bedroom. My neighbours have lived in their house for over 35yrs. They brought their kids up there, and they frequently have their grandkids to stay. But because the government have decided that older people need to 'move out' to make room for young families. their feelings are redundant. It really is not fair. I realise that young people need somewhere to live, but surely not at the expense of older people who may have lived in their home for decades, and have memories regadring that property?
This is the first I have heard about this but certainly think it is unfair. I have neighbours who have lived in their council semi for 45 years and have two spare bedrooms now that the children are grown. Why should they be forced to move? Is it something to do with benefits? What do they suggest you do - take in a lodger?
It is only a proposal - currently thrown out by the House of Lords.
It looks likely to be re-introduced in the House of Commons, but probably will only apply to people with TWO spare rooms, or people with one spare room who are offerred suitable alternative housing, but choose to refuse it.
It all obviously only applies to people in receipt of housing benefit - if you pay your rent from your own income/pension/savings then you will be completely unaffected.
It looks likely to be re-introduced in the House of Commons, but probably will only apply to people with TWO spare rooms, or people with one spare room who are offerred suitable alternative housing, but choose to refuse it.
It all obviously only applies to people in receipt of housing benefit - if you pay your rent from your own income/pension/savings then you will be completely unaffected.
I can see the logic in getting people to size down as their needs change after all they would expect to size up if it was needed. Maybe all new social tenecy agreements should have a clause where the property/tenants circumstances are reviewed for suitability and need. This would mean folk would go into the system knowing that while they would be offered alternatives and have security in one sense they would not be able to occupy space they didn't really need at the expense of families waiting for a home. Those in properties like that now should be allowed to stay or some other incentive provided to encourage them to downsize
-- answer removed --
It seems however I explain, the rule is gonna be in place. No negotiation. Honestly, I thought more people were aware of this. It's due to happen next year. Every quarter I get an 'inhouse' magazine from the housing association. They constantly remind me of this new rule. I don't have a link, but if you look on your local housing associations websites....
