Shortly to be introduced in April where spare bedrooms are heavily taxed.
Many couples sleep in separate bedrooms but because they are married they are classed as sleeping together. Gay relationships may also run into a problem.
Is this a well thought out policy or an excellent way of getting families to downsize?
LoftyLottie,
how do you know it wont affect OAP who are on housing benefit?
I live in a 2 bedroomed bungalow but only use one bedroom and nearly 70 years old.
The reduction will not apply to:
•People who have shared ownership of their property (where the property is part owned and part rented)
•People who are over the state pension credit age (or whose partner is over the state pension credit age)
•People who have been placed in temporary accommodation
•People in certain supported accommodation
•People in certain non-mainstream accommodation, such houseboats or caravans.
This also answers Ann's questions about part ownership.
Some of us have had to rely on local housing because we couldn't afford to buy, all the while paying rent, now the councils, government are changing all that, and already we have seen local long term residents being moved out from the only home they have known, away from friends, community and family.
those who are lucky enough to own their homes won't have this problem.
unless they get old which we all do, then you may have to give that up to pay for your old age care
social housing is not a house for life, if you have managed to raise a family to adulthood using social housing, you have done very well, today's families are not so lucky due to the lack of available properties. its sad when you see families with young children cooped up in high rise flats because there are no houses whilst single people or couples occupy 3 and 4 bedroomed properties with large gardens.
and it's also sad when you see those who have paid all their lives to the local authority, contributed, only to see it being given to a recently arrived family, which the local authority are legally bound to be housed. Those who think it's ok to move people from properties they had lived in for years, hope that it doesn't happen to them.
presumably many on here own homes, so wouldn't actually know what it's like living in social housing. No one said it's for life, however where are the councils proposing to put the people they move?
I rent privately em, I am under no illusion that I could be turfed out at a moments notice for a multitude of reasons that are beyond my control. but that is life unfortunately.
i am too old to be thinking of moving, have most of the things i need now in the local area, if had lots of money, which i don't, would have bought this place, but it wasn't to be. I don't think anyone who lives in social housing ever has had security of tenure, or felt that the council couldn't ask for their property back at some point.
Em - I used to live opposite a guest house where 'recently arrived' families were housed. 5 people in one room!! So people thinking they arrive and get given a house are wrong. It doesn't work like that. They had been there for 6 months when I sold my house.
Renting from the council is a lot less risky that owning your own home or renting privately. You don't get the same kind of help with mortgages that you do with council rent. The council don't repossess if you fall on hard times.
This seems to be a really mean proposal designed to squeeze the last penny from hard pressed tenants. If they pay, they can stay.
The properties would have become available to be re-let in due course. But now, for the sake of a few extra pounds, lives will be disrupted and people isolated when they're decanted into areas away from their families and friends.
The low meanness of this government would make a Victorian workhouse master gape in admiration