Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
Why should somebody be entitled to full housing benefit so they can live in a large oversized mansion? Common sense really. The changes brought along with the "bedroom tax", were not only beneficial to claimants, but things that mysteriously the previous Labour Government chose not to introduce. Instead they chose not increase the money paid to the landlords by setting the LHA rates much too high. Rents then increased to match those excessive rates, with Landlords safe in the knowledge HB(ie the taxpayer) would cover it.
|
We're not talking mansions, we're talking terraced/semi detached houses. I agree that in some cases it's inappropriate for people to live in an oversized property, but it wasn't been thought through properly. Most council properties are 2 or 3 bedroom houses designed for families, there simply isn't enough 1 bedroom properties. The result is that people are having to either meet the shortfall out of their benefit intended for day to day living expenses, get into arrears and be evicted (some of these will qualify for much inferior 'temporary' accommodation that costs the taxpayer hundreds of pounds per week) or end up homeless with all the problems that that entails.
Many local authorities are now finding their larger properties impossible to let. It's not that people are refusing to move somewhere smaller, there simply isn't the accommodation available. The Government argues that they should consider the private sector, but this means much less housing rights for the tenant and even higher costs in Housing Benefit, simply because private sector rents are higher than those for social housing. Often, the amount the state is prepared to pay for private accommodation is similar to the overlarge local authority rent without the Bedroom Tax!
Because the regulations didn't specify exactly what a bedroom actually is, many have been able to become exempt anyway. All that's been achieved is the exact same amount of Housing Benefit being paid, with the hassle and worry for claimants and extra administrative costs for local authorities.
Some of these people are shunted from property to property (sometimes many miles away) which causes problems for work (many HB claimants are in work), childcare and schooling etc. Who would want to disrupt their childs education by changing schools every five minutes? There is a bigger picture to consider.
So, we have a situation where people are being repeatedly messed about, houses lying empty and the taxpayer paying out more for temporary accommodation. Surely it would be better to have someone living in a property with an extra bedroom than paying out hundreds a week for families to live in one room whilst their old house lies empty.