The state benefits system mega-thread.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I thought that was the idea behind it? To free up larger properties for families?

It's certainly part of the intention but you can't force people to move if they are up to date with rent

---------- Post added at 12:31 ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 ----------

Originally Posted by rhyds

Two of my friends have been able to either get a council house for the first time or move to a larger one now that properties are being freed up.

The thing is, this policy has been in place for years for those in private rented accommodation.

getting some on here to accept that is proving very hard

---------- Post added at 12:37 ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

The fairness is that it is something that those in the private rented sector have had to deal with all along. People keep bitching about too little 1/2 bed social housing being built. Although in the area around me, quite a lot of 1/2 bed social housing has been built. It has been all too easy to put people in oversized housing, because the tenants didn't care about how the rent was going to be paid. The housing associations could build loads of unneeded 3/4 properties. Now they can concentrate more on building 1/2 bed properties, with demand for 3/4 bed ones being supplied by the ones freed up by people with spare bedrooms.

Housing associations are financed by central government and recycling rent money.

Exactly , this policy may actually focus some LA's and HA's in managing the stock a bit more efficiently

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Housing associations are financed by central government and recycling rent money.

Housing associations are also financed through borrowing. Borrowing is their main source of funding for building new properties.

Of course they're forced to sell properties off at substantial discounts with, contrary to government claims, a replacement rate on right to buy of about 1 to 7 rather than 1 to 1 but that's a different story.

Here's hoping it doesn't go the same way the private sector has, with family homes in tremendously short supply because developers went crazy building small flats. Due to high cost of land that was the way to get the most profit.

I'm not convinced, in any event, that we should use the private rented sector as any measure of what is fair. Our PRS is a disaster by any sensible measure.

---------- Post added at 14:36 ---------- Previous post was at 14:31 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

Exactly , this policy may actually focus some LA's and HA's in managing the stock a bit more efficiently

Perhaps another good way of assisting with management of stock would be to stop forcing social housing providers to sell stock into the private sector on substantial discounts.

Over 1/3rd of all right to buy has found its way into the private rented sector.

I entirely agree the social housing providers could do better with their stock, I'm merely of the opinion that enabling them to build more would be a far better way to both improve the availability of social housing and reduce the housing benefit bill.

EDIT: All this said, as we're talking about fairness perhaps you guys could enlighten me on why this only affects people of working age?

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Perhaps another good way of assisting with management of stock would be to stop forcing social housing providers to sell stock into the private sector on substantial discounts.

Over 1/3rd of all right to buy has found its way into the private rented sector.

I entirely agree the social housing providers could do better with their stock, I'm merely of the opinion that enabling them to build more would be a far better way to both improve the availability of social housing and reduce the housing benefit bill.

I think that's spot on ,no way should the LA's have been allowed to sell off all the stock without replacing at least some of it (hindsight is a wonderful thing )

All this said, as we're talking about fairness perhaps you guys could enlighten me on why this only affects people of working age?

I must admit that i was surprised that the biggest offenders of under occupying have been given exempt status ,namely pensioners .I would have sooner that disabled people be given exempt status and pensioners given the reduction in benefit .I have today fit 10 windows in a 3 bed house occupied only by an 80 something old woman and there where bungalows built 3yrs ago behind her street on the grounds of an old school specifically for pensioners

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by martyh

I think that's spot on ,no way should the LA's have been allowed to sell off all the stock without replacing at least some of it (hindsight is a wonderful thing )

-allowed +compelled.

---------- Post added at 18:03 ---------- Previous post was at 18:00 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

I must admit that i was surprised that the biggest offenders of under occupying have been given exempt status ,namely pensioners .I would have sooner that disabled people be given exempt status and pensioners given the reduction in benefit .I have today fit 10 windows in a 3 bed house occupied only by an 80 something old woman and there where bungalows built 3yrs ago behind her street on the grounds of an old school specifically for pensioners

Haven't pensioners been exempted from most of the 'austerity' measures? Not sure why this would be surprising. An absolute majority of pensioners vote Tory and they have the highest turnout.

Fairness is for those who wouldn't have voted Tory anyway.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

I have today fit 10 windows in a 3 bed house occupied only by an 80 something old woman and there where bungalows built 3yrs ago behind her street on the grounds of an old school specifically for pensioners

Don't worry Marty. she might snuff it soon. and a nice big family can move in

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

-allowed +compelled.

---------- Post added at 18:03 ---------- Previous post was at 18:00 ----------



Haven't pensioners been exempted from most of the 'austerity' measures? Not sure why this would be surprising. An absolute majority of pensioners vote Tory and they have the highest turnout.

Fairness is for those who wouldn't have voted Tory anyway.

Actually, in 2010 it was 44%.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/greaves/wellington_college_talk.ppt

Originally Posted by Gary L

Don't worry Marty. she might snuff it soon. and a nice big family can move in

That is probably the thinking behind the exemption, 'natural wastage' would vacate the properties anyway and no way would a council move a pensioner into a 3/2 bed semi so in a relatively short number of years the problem of having elderly people hogging large council houses will solve itself naturally

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Actually, in 2010 it was 44%.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pa...llege_talk.ppt

Thanks - let me find the source for the figure I quoted. It refers to 'voting intention' rather than 2010's results, my bad there.

[denphone]

Housing benefit changes distress disabled people, say MPs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26843152

The problem is in its implementation it is hitting the wrong group too much.

[Jimmy-J]

But that's ok, because it saves the tax payer £1m a day.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

But that's ok, because it saves the tax payer £1m a day.

l did not say it was okay Jimmy because in my opinion the policy was ill thought out and rushed as most policies are to save money.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by denphone

l did not say it was okay Jimmy because in my opinion the policy was ill thought out and rushed as most policies are to save money.

I think he meant to quote Martyr from http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35...-post1150.html

(Probably).

I still want to know where all these smaller properties are to move into? Also I am pretty sure most supporting this bollocks policy have no idea how difficult it is to move from one property to another anyway. Its all bidding wars nowadays

[denphone]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

I still want to know where all these smaller properties are to move into? Also I am pretty sure most supporting this bollocks policy have no idea how difficult it is to move from one property to another anyway. Its all bidding wars nowadays

Exactly as there is a acute shortage of smaller places that means that many could not downsize to a smaller place even if they wanted to.

The whole policy is ill-thought out and badly implemented and the consequences critics cited, namely few people moving and many in rent arrears, have come to pass.