Petition urges leniency on "bedroom tax" evictions

York Press: . .

MORE than 1,000 people have called for York’s council leaders to promise not to evict tenants who cannot pay their rent because of the “bedroom tax”.

The controversial welfare reform came into force in April, and figures released in the autumn show the city’s rent arrears rose by almost a fifth in the first five months after the new measure came in.

At the end of September, 388 council tenants were further behind with their payments than at the start of 2013/14.

A 1,060-name petition asking for a City of York Council commitment to avoid evicting those whose arrears as a “direct result” of the spare-room subsidy will be debated at the full council meeting on Thursday.

The welfare change affects tenants deemed to be under-occupying their homes under Government size criteria, meaning they cannot claim housing benefit to cover all their rent if they are classed as having extra bedrooms.

The petition signatories have also asked for council-owned houses to be reclassified as smaller homes, ensuring rooms are not ranked as bedrooms if they are not used for that purpose, and to encourage York housing associations to do the same.

A report by Tom Brittain, the authority’s head of housing services, prepared in response to the petition, said it had developed ways of helping tenants affected by the spare-room subsidy.

It said eviction would be “a last resort”, after support to allow tenants to stay in their home or to move voluntarily had been offered.

The council would also need to apply for an eviction order, and the county court would have the final say.

The report stated: “To date, no tenant affected by the spare-room subsidy has been evicted and no court orders have been granted against customers for non-payment of rent arrears.”

Mr Brittain said the council would consider redesignating any bedroom which covered less than 50sq ft, and this had already happened at five homes, while tenants could also apply for discretionary housing payments to help with their rent.

He said: “The case law in this area is developing over time and we will continue to review our position in light of this should it be needed. There is clear guidance that the council cannot redesignate homes merely because the tenant does not require the additional room.”

The council estimates the bedroom tax has so far caused about £50,000 of arrears and affected about 600 tenants in some way.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:25am Tue 10 Dec 13

MrsHoney says...

I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.
I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes. MrsHoney

9:39am Tue 10 Dec 13

Kevin Turvey says...

Where can I find the petition to sign to stop the phrase ‘bedroom tax’ being used?

There is no such thing!

If it was a ‘real’ tax they would pay it as it would be a criminal offence and the relevant custodial sentence implemented not to!

What there are though are some tenants in properties too large for their normal requirements that the normal council tax payer is subsidizing and in some cases I am sure the normal and full paying income tax payer is subsidizing the rent as well!

Why as a council tax payer who pays all of my ‘demand’ should I subsidize individuals who do not require the extra floor space day to day, unless they are in dire need eg. Genuinely disabled or ill.

These genuine in need individuals is what the welfare state is for not for some to make a lifestyle choice of shelling out sprogs to get a council flat so they do not have to do a days work to support themselves.

People who are getting something for free then a part of it is removed are going to complain aren’t they!

This country is in a huge spiral of debt and the day of free loading off the state has got to stop or we will end up like Greece or worse.

By the way I do not read the daily mail!

Merely can see the reality of the economics and the end result!

My personal opinion is that I actually want a financial collapse or similar to occur with the inevitable change in the political system and attitude/reality adjustment as it will sort out very quickly the wheat from the chaff and the hangers onners will go somewhere else whilst the country recovers, that would take years.

What would be left would be an emptier and stronger country of grafters and people who have saved up and not got into large amounts of unnecessary personal debt and the country having actually learnt the necessary lessons that we are not collectively doing at the moment.
Whilst life in general day to day would be harder work but in my opinion the added benefit would be a better quality and similar way of life for those remaining.

Sometimes the pain has to be felt for the lesson to sink in. this is one of those occasions!
Where can I find the petition to sign to stop the phrase ‘bedroom tax’ being used? There is no such thing! If it was a ‘real’ tax they would pay it as it would be a criminal offence and the relevant custodial sentence implemented not to! What there are though are some tenants in properties too large for their normal requirements that the normal council tax payer is subsidizing and in some cases I am sure the normal and full paying income tax payer is subsidizing the rent as well! Why as a council tax payer who pays all of my ‘demand’ should I subsidize individuals who do not require the extra floor space day to day, unless they are in dire need eg. Genuinely disabled or ill. These genuine in need individuals is what the welfare state is for not for some to make a lifestyle choice of shelling out sprogs to get a council flat so they do not have to do a days work to support themselves. People who are getting something for free then a part of it is removed are going to complain aren’t they! This country is in a huge spiral of debt and the day of free loading off the state has got to stop or we will end up like Greece or worse. By the way I do not read the daily mail! Merely can see the reality of the economics and the end result! My personal opinion is that I actually want a financial collapse or similar to occur with the inevitable change in the political system and attitude/reality adjustment as it will sort out very quickly the wheat from the chaff and the hangers onners will go somewhere else whilst the country recovers, that would take years. What would be left would be an emptier and stronger country of grafters and people who have saved up and not got into large amounts of unnecessary personal debt and the country having actually learnt the necessary lessons that we are not collectively doing at the moment. Whilst life in general day to day would be harder work but in my opinion the added benefit would be a better quality and similar way of life for those remaining. Sometimes the pain has to be felt for the lesson to sink in. this is one of those occasions! Kevin Turvey

9:48am Tue 10 Dec 13

YorkPatrol says...

Kevin Turvey wrote:
Where can I find the petition to sign to stop the phrase ‘bedroom tax’ being used? There is no such thing! If it was a ‘real’ tax they would pay it as it would be a criminal offence and the relevant custodial sentence implemented not to! What there are though are some tenants in properties too large for their normal requirements that the normal council tax payer is subsidizing and in some cases I am sure the normal and full paying income tax payer is subsidizing the rent as well! Why as a council tax payer who pays all of my ‘demand’ should I subsidize individuals who do not require the extra floor space day to day, unless they are in dire need eg. Genuinely disabled or ill. These genuine in need individuals is what the welfare state is for not for some to make a lifestyle choice of shelling out sprogs to get a council flat so they do not have to do a days work to support themselves. People who are getting something for free then a part of it is removed are going to complain aren’t they! This country is in a huge spiral of debt and the day of free loading off the state has got to stop or we will end up like Greece or worse. By the way I do not read the daily mail! Merely can see the reality of the economics and the end result! My personal opinion is that I actually want a financial collapse or similar to occur with the inevitable change in the political system and attitude/reality adjustment as it will sort out very quickly the wheat from the chaff and the hangers onners will go somewhere else whilst the country recovers, that would take years. What would be left would be an emptier and stronger country of grafters and people who have saved up and not got into large amounts of unnecessary personal debt and the country having actually learnt the necessary lessons that we are not collectively doing at the moment. Whilst life in general day to day would be harder work but in my opinion the added benefit would be a better quality and similar way of life for those remaining. Sometimes the pain has to be felt for the lesson to sink in. this is one of those occasions!
And the award for the most accurate and sensible comment ever written on here goes to Kevin
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Turvey[/bold] wrote: Where can I find the petition to sign to stop the phrase ‘bedroom tax’ being used? There is no such thing! If it was a ‘real’ tax they would pay it as it would be a criminal offence and the relevant custodial sentence implemented not to! What there are though are some tenants in properties too large for their normal requirements that the normal council tax payer is subsidizing and in some cases I am sure the normal and full paying income tax payer is subsidizing the rent as well! Why as a council tax payer who pays all of my ‘demand’ should I subsidize individuals who do not require the extra floor space day to day, unless they are in dire need eg. Genuinely disabled or ill. These genuine in need individuals is what the welfare state is for not for some to make a lifestyle choice of shelling out sprogs to get a council flat so they do not have to do a days work to support themselves. People who are getting something for free then a part of it is removed are going to complain aren’t they! This country is in a huge spiral of debt and the day of free loading off the state has got to stop or we will end up like Greece or worse. By the way I do not read the daily mail! Merely can see the reality of the economics and the end result! My personal opinion is that I actually want a financial collapse or similar to occur with the inevitable change in the political system and attitude/reality adjustment as it will sort out very quickly the wheat from the chaff and the hangers onners will go somewhere else whilst the country recovers, that would take years. What would be left would be an emptier and stronger country of grafters and people who have saved up and not got into large amounts of unnecessary personal debt and the country having actually learnt the necessary lessons that we are not collectively doing at the moment. Whilst life in general day to day would be harder work but in my opinion the added benefit would be a better quality and similar way of life for those remaining. Sometimes the pain has to be felt for the lesson to sink in. this is one of those occasions![/p][/quote]And the award for the most accurate and sensible comment ever written on here goes to Kevin YorkPatrol

10:15am Tue 10 Dec 13

carpon says...

The supply of affordable housing and council homes is not subsidised by the taxpayer. Rents are calculated like the private housing market.
Taxpayers are constantly told incorrectly for political gain.
Each case should be judged on its individual needs and circumstances, for this to happen, bureaucracy and labour to implement this would far out weigh the so called “bedroom tax” collected.
This is an immoral form of taxation, once again targeting the most vulnerable people in society. Of course they will be those that will abuse the system like any other form of taxation, Banks and large businesses pay millions to accountants to do just that. The question I would like to ask is: scenario 1, An old lady now lives on her own, In her younger days she was married and has two children. Her husband went out to work and paid tax and insurance all his working life and so did the old lady apart from a few years off work looking after the children and then possibly returned to work part time. The children now are adults and work full time and pay tax and insurance. Rent has been paid in full on this property for say 40 years, if this were a mortgage payment then it would have been paid off years ago. Usually a women will out life her husband and she are now on her own with all the memories of her family in her home. In her later years would it be right to kick her out? , Thankfully she would not have to pay bedroom tax.
Scenario 2, a disabled person regardless of previous mobility ability, is under the age for exemption for bedroom tax, requires a room for a carer to possibly sleep over to take care of this person, is now taxed.
The scenarios could go on and on , but the majority of people in council and social housing pay their rent and provide a home for future tax paying and home buying siblings .
As for the bedroom tax , once again it is immoral .
The supply of affordable housing and council homes is not subsidised by the taxpayer. Rents are calculated like the private housing market. Taxpayers are constantly told incorrectly for political gain. Each case should be judged on its individual needs and circumstances, for this to happen, bureaucracy and labour to implement this would far out weigh the so called “bedroom tax” collected. This is an immoral form of taxation, once again targeting the most vulnerable people in society. Of course they will be those that will abuse the system like any other form of taxation, Banks and large businesses pay millions to accountants to do just that. The question I would like to ask is: scenario 1, An old lady now lives on her own, In her younger days she was married and has two children. Her husband went out to work and paid tax and insurance all his working life and so did the old lady apart from a few years off work looking after the children and then possibly returned to work part time. The children now are adults and work full time and pay tax and insurance. Rent has been paid in full on this property for say 40 years, if this were a mortgage payment then it would have been paid off years ago. Usually a women will out life her husband and she are now on her own with all the memories of her family in her home. In her later years would it be right to kick her out? , Thankfully she would not have to pay bedroom tax. Scenario 2, a disabled person regardless of previous mobility ability, is under the age for exemption for bedroom tax, requires a room for a carer to possibly sleep over to take care of this person, is now taxed. The scenarios could go on and on , but the majority of people in council and social housing pay their rent and provide a home for future tax paying and home buying siblings . As for the bedroom tax , once again it is immoral . carpon

10:20am Tue 10 Dec 13

Kevin Turvey says...

Further to York Patrols Comments here is another golden nugget that is related to the ‘story’.

There are two ways of looking at money/life and everything!
The way I was brought up and STILL live despite passing number 8:

1. Work, get paid, try to improve your lot by going on courses at work or in my own time.

2. Eventually get paid more because of the work I have done to improve my little lot in life.

3. Pay as a first instance, Mortgage/rent, Council tax, elec, gas, water, house insurance.

4. After that maybe some sensible food shopping. Grow some vegetables in the garden, learn to cook as this is better for you and a lot cheaper, plan your meals (does not include Mon – Chippy, Tues – Indian takeaway, Wed – Chinese takeaway etc etc etc).

5. If I am luck save a little for any future rainy days/weeks/years.

6. If I am lucky I run a sensible cheap car to get to work etc. that I learn to look after myself by night classes etc (see item 1).

7. Only buy things below after number 5 has taken place and there is any spare money left. But never ever ever ever take on debt for any of the below!

8. Try to repeat number 2 if possible by repeating numbers 1 and 2 to help to put number 5 in a better position so to make the items below even more affordable.

Then look at things like holidays, drink, nights out, cinema, phones, motorcycles and other western consumer goods/other shiney objects and rather unrequired to exist objects only within a fixed budget.

Self-discipline allows you to plan/save and cope with the unexpected costs in life as they will always turn up at some time.

This way of living has done me well over the years and allowed me to be mortgage free before 40 and money in the bank and best of all nobody else getting very rich on my behalf because of my own poor financial management!

The best way to sum up is do not buy what you do not actually have the money in your hand for and spend less than what you earn.



The way others are brought up or choose to live:

1. Have what you want when you want it by paying for it later by debt irrespective of income/ circumstances and personal input into your own future .

2. Complain bitterly that the banks/pay day loan lenders/council/gove
rnment and whoever are all B@stards because they make a lot of money off you. You will always be carrying the monkey around on your back because that is the way YOU have chosen.

3. Buy unimportant things that deprecate the fastest the most expensive way possible with debt. The lenders own you for the rest of your life.

4. You will always be in this situation because you do not understand how you got into the debt spiral.


You choose!

Do not complain if you choose the latter, by choice or default, you have still chosen!
Further to York Patrols Comments here is another golden nugget that is related to the ‘story’. There are two ways of looking at money/life and everything! The way I was brought up and STILL live despite passing number 8: 1. Work, get paid, try to improve your lot by going on courses at work or in my own time. 2. Eventually get paid more because of the work I have done to improve my little lot in life. 3. Pay as a first instance, Mortgage/rent, Council tax, elec, gas, water, house insurance. 4. After that maybe some sensible food shopping. Grow some vegetables in the garden, learn to cook as this is better for you and a lot cheaper, plan your meals (does not include Mon – Chippy, Tues – Indian takeaway, Wed – Chinese takeaway etc etc etc). 5. If I am luck save a little for any future rainy days/weeks/years. 6. If I am lucky I run a sensible cheap car to get to work etc. that I learn to look after myself by night classes etc (see item 1). 7. Only buy things below after number 5 has taken place and there is any spare money left. But never ever ever ever take on debt for any of the below! 8. Try to repeat number 2 if possible by repeating numbers 1 and 2 to help to put number 5 in a better position so to make the items below even more affordable. Then look at things like holidays, drink, nights out, cinema, phones, motorcycles and other western consumer goods/other shiney objects and rather unrequired to exist objects only within a fixed budget. Self-discipline allows you to plan/save and cope with the unexpected costs in life as they will always turn up at some time. This way of living has done me well over the years and allowed me to be mortgage free before 40 and money in the bank and best of all nobody else getting very rich on my behalf because of my own poor financial management! The best way to sum up is do not buy what you do not actually have the money in your hand for and spend less than what you earn. The way others are brought up or choose to live: 1. Have what you want when you want it by paying for it later by debt irrespective of income/ circumstances and personal input into your own future . 2. Complain bitterly that the banks/pay day loan lenders/council/gove rnment and whoever are all B@stards because they make a lot of money off you. You will always be carrying the monkey around on your back because that is the way YOU have chosen. 3. Buy unimportant things that deprecate the fastest the most expensive way possible with debt. The lenders own you for the rest of your life. 4. You will always be in this situation because you do not understand how you got into the debt spiral. You choose! Do not complain if you choose the latter, by choice or default, you have still chosen! Kevin Turvey

10:37am Tue 10 Dec 13

perplexed says...

Kevin Turvey wrote:
Further to York Patrols Comments here is another golden nugget that is related to the ‘story’.

There are two ways of looking at money/life and everything!
The way I was brought up and STILL live despite passing number 8:

1. Work, get paid, try to improve your lot by going on courses at work or in my own time.

2. Eventually get paid more because of the work I have done to improve my little lot in life.

3. Pay as a first instance, Mortgage/rent, Council tax, elec, gas, water, house insurance.

4. After that maybe some sensible food shopping. Grow some vegetables in the garden, learn to cook as this is better for you and a lot cheaper, plan your meals (does not include Mon – Chippy, Tues – Indian takeaway, Wed – Chinese takeaway etc etc etc).

5. If I am luck save a little for any future rainy days/weeks/years.

6. If I am lucky I run a sensible cheap car to get to work etc. that I learn to look after myself by night classes etc (see item 1).

7. Only buy things below after number 5 has taken place and there is any spare money left. But never ever ever ever take on debt for any of the below!

8. Try to repeat number 2 if possible by repeating numbers 1 and 2 to help to put number 5 in a better position so to make the items below even more affordable.

Then look at things like holidays, drink, nights out, cinema, phones, motorcycles and other western consumer goods/other shiney objects and rather unrequired to exist objects only within a fixed budget.

Self-discipline allows you to plan/save and cope with the unexpected costs in life as they will always turn up at some time.

This way of living has done me well over the years and allowed me to be mortgage free before 40 and money in the bank and best of all nobody else getting very rich on my behalf because of my own poor financial management!

The best way to sum up is do not buy what you do not actually have the money in your hand for and spend less than what you earn.



The way others are brought up or choose to live:

1. Have what you want when you want it by paying for it later by debt irrespective of income/ circumstances and personal input into your own future .

2. Complain bitterly that the banks/pay day loan lenders/council/gove

rnment and whoever are all B@stards because they make a lot of money off you. You will always be carrying the monkey around on your back because that is the way YOU have chosen.

3. Buy unimportant things that deprecate the fastest the most expensive way possible with debt. The lenders own you for the rest of your life.

4. You will always be in this situation because you do not understand how you got into the debt spiral.


You choose!

Do not complain if you choose the latter, by choice or default, you have still chosen!
Presumably we should end the 'subsidy' government is paying for private individuals to purchase new homes up to £600,000 at public expense! I seem to remember that it was an over inflated housing market and cheap money that got us in this mess in the first place.

The governments housing policy would have far more credibility if it helped social housing build more suitable properties for those in need rather than 'subsidise' private individuals in the purchase of their own homes from the public purse!
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Turvey[/bold] wrote: Further to York Patrols Comments here is another golden nugget that is related to the ‘story’. There are two ways of looking at money/life and everything! The way I was brought up and STILL live despite passing number 8: 1. Work, get paid, try to improve your lot by going on courses at work or in my own time. 2. Eventually get paid more because of the work I have done to improve my little lot in life. 3. Pay as a first instance, Mortgage/rent, Council tax, elec, gas, water, house insurance. 4. After that maybe some sensible food shopping. Grow some vegetables in the garden, learn to cook as this is better for you and a lot cheaper, plan your meals (does not include Mon – Chippy, Tues – Indian takeaway, Wed – Chinese takeaway etc etc etc). 5. If I am luck save a little for any future rainy days/weeks/years. 6. If I am lucky I run a sensible cheap car to get to work etc. that I learn to look after myself by night classes etc (see item 1). 7. Only buy things below after number 5 has taken place and there is any spare money left. But never ever ever ever take on debt for any of the below! 8. Try to repeat number 2 if possible by repeating numbers 1 and 2 to help to put number 5 in a better position so to make the items below even more affordable. Then look at things like holidays, drink, nights out, cinema, phones, motorcycles and other western consumer goods/other shiney objects and rather unrequired to exist objects only within a fixed budget. Self-discipline allows you to plan/save and cope with the unexpected costs in life as they will always turn up at some time. This way of living has done me well over the years and allowed me to be mortgage free before 40 and money in the bank and best of all nobody else getting very rich on my behalf because of my own poor financial management! The best way to sum up is do not buy what you do not actually have the money in your hand for and spend less than what you earn. The way others are brought up or choose to live: 1. Have what you want when you want it by paying for it later by debt irrespective of income/ circumstances and personal input into your own future . 2. Complain bitterly that the banks/pay day loan lenders/council/gove rnment and whoever are all B@stards because they make a lot of money off you. You will always be carrying the monkey around on your back because that is the way YOU have chosen. 3. Buy unimportant things that deprecate the fastest the most expensive way possible with debt. The lenders own you for the rest of your life. 4. You will always be in this situation because you do not understand how you got into the debt spiral. You choose! Do not complain if you choose the latter, by choice or default, you have still chosen![/p][/quote]Presumably we should end the 'subsidy' government is paying for private individuals to purchase new homes up to £600,000 at public expense! I seem to remember that it was an over inflated housing market and cheap money that got us in this mess in the first place. The governments housing policy would have far more credibility if it helped social housing build more suitable properties for those in need rather than 'subsidise' private individuals in the purchase of their own homes from the public purse! perplexed

10:54am Tue 10 Dec 13

Kevin Turvey says...

‘perplexed says...
Presumably we should end the 'subsidy' government is paying for private individuals to purchase new homes up to £600,000 at public expense! I seem to remember that it was an over inflated housing market and cheap money that got us in this mess in the first place.

The governments housing policy would have far more credibility if it helped social housing build more suitable properties for those in need rather than 'subsidise' private individuals in the purchase of their own homes from the public purse!’


Social Housing does not fix the problem.
It makes the Rowntree Foundation and others richer at poor people’s expense, yet another con!

Wholly owned Freehold is the only way to go.

If you give people something achievable to strive for that has long term benefits ie. mortagage eventually paid off and no rent to pay for the rest of their lives I know what I would go for!

The poor personal choice by the customers and the lenders who offered the various loans (not just housing market - all loans) is the problem feeding the frenzy/spiral.

People taking advantage of high levels of then apparently cheap debt offered fuelled the problem to long term financial damage to all, it has to be paid back at some time and in some form, maybe not in the form you were expecting!

Multiply that out and that’s the problem. People living beyond their means for whatever reason in the so called rich west!

Just because somebody offers me a free or apparently cheap Sh!tty stick does not mean I have to take them up on the offer does it? People have done it to themselves.
‘perplexed says... Presumably we should end the 'subsidy' government is paying for private individuals to purchase new homes up to £600,000 at public expense! I seem to remember that it was an over inflated housing market and cheap money that got us in this mess in the first place. The governments housing policy would have far more credibility if it helped social housing build more suitable properties for those in need rather than 'subsidise' private individuals in the purchase of their own homes from the public purse!’ Social Housing does not fix the problem. It makes the Rowntree Foundation and others richer at poor people’s expense, yet another con! Wholly owned Freehold is the only way to go. If you give people something achievable to strive for that has long term benefits ie. mortagage eventually paid off and no rent to pay for the rest of their lives I know what I would go for! The poor personal choice by the customers and the lenders who offered the various loans (not just housing market - all loans) is the problem feeding the frenzy/spiral. People taking advantage of high levels of then apparently cheap debt offered fuelled the problem to long term financial damage to all, it has to be paid back at some time and in some form, maybe not in the form you were expecting! Multiply that out and that’s the problem. People living beyond their means for whatever reason in the so called rich west! Just because somebody offers me a free or apparently cheap Sh!tty stick does not mean I have to take them up on the offer does it? People have done it to themselves. Kevin Turvey

10:58am Tue 10 Dec 13

Blythespirit says...

MrsHoney wrote:
I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.
This is the problem - there are not the smaller properties available for them to move into. The largest demand the council have is for one and two bedroom properties and, as you can imagine, demand far outstrips supply. Part of the problem is that the elderly are perhaps the largest group of over-occupiers and, quite rightly, they are exempt from the bedroom tax. In many cases moving would be very difficult for them anyway - they have lived in their homes for many years, some are not in the best of health, and moving would be incredibly stressful for them. There are also families with young children of different sexes. Previously they were entitled to a room for each child, now they are not eligible for the separate room until the eldest child is 10. Many of these families are actually working, but on low wages, and simply cannot afford the extra money for rent and council tax which, over a month, amounts to a very significant amount out of their meagre wages.
[quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.[/p][/quote]This is the problem - there are not the smaller properties available for them to move into. The largest demand the council have is for one and two bedroom properties and, as you can imagine, demand far outstrips supply. Part of the problem is that the elderly are perhaps the largest group of over-occupiers and, quite rightly, they are exempt from the bedroom tax. In many cases moving would be very difficult for them anyway - they have lived in their homes for many years, some are not in the best of health, and moving would be incredibly stressful for them. There are also families with young children of different sexes. Previously they were entitled to a room for each child, now they are not eligible for the separate room until the eldest child is 10. Many of these families are actually working, but on low wages, and simply cannot afford the extra money for rent and council tax which, over a month, amounts to a very significant amount out of their meagre wages. Blythespirit

11:03am Tue 10 Dec 13

Fat Harry says...

There are insufficient smaller properties for people to move to, hence many tenants are trapped in larger properties, and unable to escape the bedroom tax, except by moving to a private rented property, which will probably cost the state (ie the taxpayer) MORE.

As well as attacking vulnerable tenants, this is another attack on social housing. We're hurtling back to the nineteenth century - lucrative for the millionaires, disastrous for the immense majority.
There are insufficient smaller properties for people to move to, hence many tenants are trapped in larger properties, and unable to escape the bedroom tax, except by moving to a private rented property, which will probably cost the state (ie the taxpayer) MORE. As well as attacking vulnerable tenants, this is another attack on social housing. We're hurtling back to the nineteenth century - lucrative for the millionaires, disastrous for the immense majority. Fat Harry

11:13am Tue 10 Dec 13

carpon says...

MrsHoney wrote:
I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.
As you have already pointed out MrsHoney “I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this.” but to say,” The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.” is in my opinion incorrect. It is about lifestyle choices and pure economics. There are many siblings of homeowner parents in York that simply cannot afford the deposit for a mortgaged property and either pays rent to private landlords or are very lucky enough to obtain a council home. My main concern is that families are been torn apart because siblings have to move out of York to get a mortgage because of the inflated property prices. If it can be guaranteed that one or either individuals or couples wishing to obtain a council property in York was born here or locally I would be in favor of build more affordable and private homes. Its not just about houses it’s the community it affects, in my opinion.
[quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.[/p][/quote]As you have already pointed out MrsHoney “I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this.” but to say,” The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.” is in my opinion incorrect. It is about lifestyle choices and pure economics. There are many siblings of homeowner parents in York that simply cannot afford the deposit for a mortgaged property and either pays rent to private landlords or are very lucky enough to obtain a council home. My main concern is that families are been torn apart because siblings have to move out of York to get a mortgage because of the inflated property prices. If it can be guaranteed that one or either individuals or couples wishing to obtain a council property in York was born here or locally I would be in favor of build more affordable and private homes. Its not just about houses it’s the community it affects, in my opinion. carpon

11:29am Tue 10 Dec 13

Kevin Turvey says...

‘carpon says...
have to move out of York to get a mortgage because of the inflated property prices’


That is the same everywhere to degrees. They are not inflated or otherwise, just that the free market level is higher here, that’s down to it being a nice place to live.

I imagine the nice sea front houses near Caen or Portofino or not cheap either!

If it was the price of Barnsley it would be like Barnsley to live here, so don’t wish it that way!

There is no Mackevillian conspiracy to keep locals out of local property it’s just the way it is, nobody said it was fair.

There is no human right that states you can choose where you live irrespective of local markets/costs.

Sink or swim.

To my mind it forces people to learn to swim and strive for something worthwhile and should put some drive, self-discipline and strategy/planning/ac
tion into your life or you can do nothing practical about it and complain why others have worked hard and sacrificed for something nice – The modern indoctrinated PC/Institutionsal socialism way.
‘carpon says... have to move out of York to get a mortgage because of the inflated property prices’ That is the same everywhere to degrees. They are not inflated or otherwise, just that the free market level is higher here, that’s down to it being a nice place to live. I imagine the nice sea front houses near Caen or Portofino or not cheap either! If it was the price of Barnsley it would be like Barnsley to live here, so don’t wish it that way! There is no Mackevillian conspiracy to keep locals out of local property it’s just the way it is, nobody said it was fair. There is no human right that states you can choose where you live irrespective of local markets/costs. Sink or swim. To my mind it forces people to learn to swim and strive for something worthwhile and should put some drive, self-discipline and strategy/planning/ac tion into your life or you can do nothing practical about it and complain why others have worked hard and sacrificed for something nice – The modern indoctrinated PC/Institutionsal socialism way. Kevin Turvey

11:42am Tue 10 Dec 13

Dave Ruddock says...

Please oh Please The Government are yet again using any excuse to get monies, re BedRoom Tax, wounder if they know there has been HEARTH TAX (Tax on Fire places) WINDOW TAX (number of windows in a home), and now 2013, BED ROOM Tax, that no one wants and threaten people with eviction, and who will be responsible for Court Cases costs ????
Please oh Please The Government are yet again using any excuse to get monies, re BedRoom Tax, wounder if they know there has been HEARTH TAX (Tax on Fire places) WINDOW TAX (number of windows in a home), and now 2013, BED ROOM Tax, that no one wants and threaten people with eviction, and who will be responsible for Court Cases costs ???? Dave Ruddock

11:52am Tue 10 Dec 13

take 5 says...

they are only over inflated property prices because york council has allowed the university to expand without demanding they build enough accommodation for all the students attending menwhile half of east side of york is rented out to students by greedy landlords and the property prices remain over inflated thats where the problem lies
they are only over inflated property prices because york council has allowed the university to expand without demanding they build enough accommodation for all the students attending menwhile half of east side of york is rented out to students by greedy landlords and the property prices remain over inflated thats where the problem lies take 5

12:00pm Tue 10 Dec 13

carpon says...

Kevin Turvey wrote:
‘carpon says...
have to move out of York to get a mortgage because of the inflated property prices’


That is the same everywhere to degrees. They are not inflated or otherwise, just that the free market level is higher here, that’s down to it being a nice place to live.

I imagine the nice sea front houses near Caen or Portofino or not cheap either!

If it was the price of Barnsley it would be like Barnsley to live here, so don’t wish it that way!

There is no Mackevillian conspiracy to keep locals out of local property it’s just the way it is, nobody said it was fair.

There is no human right that states you can choose where you live irrespective of local markets/costs.

Sink or swim.

To my mind it forces people to learn to swim and strive for something worthwhile and should put some drive, self-discipline and strategy/planning/ac

tion into your life or you can do nothing practical about it and complain why others have worked hard and sacrificed for something nice – The modern indoctrinated PC/Institutionsal socialism way.
I respect your opinion Kevin but stick to my convictions. I was born in York and have lived her most of my life but also experienced other places within the UK and the world. Unfortunately I view York as a museum, living in the past with limited vision to the future. I agree totally with your comments regarding self-discipline and strategy/planning/ac
tion into your life etc, but what really do we have in York now? . No industry, limited infrastructure, a reliance on tourism for part time and minimum wage work. Councilors **** with each other to try and gain political advantage over stupid things like closing a bridge!
Leeds had vision and has invested and grown; York by contrast has been left behind. Mortgages in York NOW, don’t come from minimum wage families.
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Turvey[/bold] wrote: ‘carpon says... have to move out of York to get a mortgage because of the inflated property prices’ That is the same everywhere to degrees. They are not inflated or otherwise, just that the free market level is higher here, that’s down to it being a nice place to live. I imagine the nice sea front houses near Caen or Portofino or not cheap either! If it was the price of Barnsley it would be like Barnsley to live here, so don’t wish it that way! There is no Mackevillian conspiracy to keep locals out of local property it’s just the way it is, nobody said it was fair. There is no human right that states you can choose where you live irrespective of local markets/costs. Sink or swim. To my mind it forces people to learn to swim and strive for something worthwhile and should put some drive, self-discipline and strategy/planning/ac tion into your life or you can do nothing practical about it and complain why others have worked hard and sacrificed for something nice – The modern indoctrinated PC/Institutionsal socialism way.[/p][/quote]I respect your opinion Kevin but stick to my convictions. I was born in York and have lived her most of my life but also experienced other places within the UK and the world. Unfortunately I view York as a museum, living in the past with limited vision to the future. I agree totally with your comments regarding self-discipline and strategy/planning/ac tion into your life etc, but what really do we have in York now? . No industry, limited infrastructure, a reliance on tourism for part time and minimum wage work. Councilors **** with each other to try and gain political advantage over stupid things like closing a bridge! Leeds had vision and has invested and grown; York by contrast has been left behind. Mortgages in York NOW, don’t come from minimum wage families. carpon

12:20pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Kevin Turvey says...

‘carpon says...
I respect your opinion Kevin but stick to my convictions. I was born in York and have lived her most of my life but also experienced other places within the UK and the world. Unfortunately I view York as a museum, living in the past with limited vision to the future. I agree totally with your comments regarding self-discipline and strategy/planning/ac

tion into your life etc, but what really do we have in York now? . No industry, limited infrastructure, a reliance on tourism for part time and minimum wage work. Councilors **** with each other to try and gain political advantage over stupid things like closing a bridge!
Leeds had vision and has invested and grown; York by contrast has been left behind. Mortgages in York NOW, don’t come from minimum wage families.’


In a way we agree!

I think it’s up to people to improve their own lives irrespective of the outside influences.

You are stating that the opportunities to do this are limited in this city and that the present York council does not help in this regard.

Correct York council do not help at all only hinder, but there are real mortgage paying jobs here and around the locale within a reasonable commute (my next door neighbor travels to Leeds every day!), albeit not the mass employers that York used to have.

However I do not think York council policy good or bad should affect my personal ability to go out and improve my lot in life.

I am certainly not going to let them useless tw@ts mess my life up, there are enough things to do that already, they will not be the ones that get the better of me by their own useless policy/ strategy/implementat
ion.
‘carpon says... I respect your opinion Kevin but stick to my convictions. I was born in York and have lived her most of my life but also experienced other places within the UK and the world. Unfortunately I view York as a museum, living in the past with limited vision to the future. I agree totally with your comments regarding self-discipline and strategy/planning/ac tion into your life etc, but what really do we have in York now? . No industry, limited infrastructure, a reliance on tourism for part time and minimum wage work. Councilors **** with each other to try and gain political advantage over stupid things like closing a bridge! Leeds had vision and has invested and grown; York by contrast has been left behind. Mortgages in York NOW, don’t come from minimum wage families.’ In a way we agree! I think it’s up to people to improve their own lives irrespective of the outside influences. You are stating that the opportunities to do this are limited in this city and that the present York council does not help in this regard. Correct York council do not help at all only hinder, but there are real mortgage paying jobs here and around the locale within a reasonable commute (my next door neighbor travels to Leeds every day!), albeit not the mass employers that York used to have. However I do not think York council policy good or bad should affect my personal ability to go out and improve my lot in life. I am certainly not going to let them useless tw@ts mess my life up, there are enough things to do that already, they will not be the ones that get the better of me by their own useless policy/ strategy/implementat ion. Kevin Turvey

1:04pm Tue 10 Dec 13

welf_man says...

MrsHoney wrote:
I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.
I'm not convinced council/HA housing is only for emergencies, but even if it is, people housed for that reason are still being penalised for that reason:

When you apply as homeless and the LA accepts responsibility, you will be offered housing; if you refuse (without very good reason), the homelessness duty is discharged and the LA does not have to offer further accommodation. This can also occur in LAs that do not use a bid procedure to allocate properties i.e. it offers a specific property rather than asking applicants to express interest.

What this means is that you need to accept what is offered or you may not get anything else! So now we have people being penalised for following the rules, accepting what was offered when they needed it, and having no option to move to a smaller property because the majority of council / housing association properties are for families, built in the days when a child having their own room to do homework in was seen as a good thing.

There is an additional issue for people having been housed from a homeless or domestic violence situation, when the house they were allocated may have been a real haven from whatever had happened previously, and moving out - possibly after not very long - is a terrifying prospect.
[quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.[/p][/quote]I'm not convinced council/HA housing is only for emergencies, but even if it is, people housed for that reason are still being penalised for that reason: When you apply as homeless and the LA accepts responsibility, you will be offered housing; if you refuse (without very good reason), the homelessness duty is discharged and the LA does not have to offer further accommodation. This can also occur in LAs that do not use a bid procedure to allocate properties i.e. it offers a specific property rather than asking applicants to express interest. What this means is that you need to accept what is offered or you may not get anything else! So now we have people being penalised for following the rules, accepting what was offered when they needed it, and having no option to move to a smaller property because the majority of council / housing association properties are for families, built in the days when a child having their own room to do homework in was seen as a good thing. There is an additional issue for people having been housed from a homeless or domestic violence situation, when the house they were allocated may have been a real haven from whatever had happened previously, and moving out - possibly after not very long - is a terrifying prospect. welf_man

1:09pm Tue 10 Dec 13

carpon says...

Kevin Turvey wrote:
‘carpon says...
I respect your opinion Kevin but stick to my convictions. I was born in York and have lived her most of my life but also experienced other places within the UK and the world. Unfortunately I view York as a museum, living in the past with limited vision to the future. I agree totally with your comments regarding self-discipline and strategy/planning/ac


tion into your life etc, but what really do we have in York now? . No industry, limited infrastructure, a reliance on tourism for part time and minimum wage work. Councilors **** with each other to try and gain political advantage over stupid things like closing a bridge!
Leeds had vision and has invested and grown; York by contrast has been left behind. Mortgages in York NOW, don’t come from minimum wage families.’


In a way we agree!

I think it’s up to people to improve their own lives irrespective of the outside influences.

You are stating that the opportunities to do this are limited in this city and that the present York council does not help in this regard.

Correct York council do not help at all only hinder, but there are real mortgage paying jobs here and around the locale within a reasonable commute (my next door neighbor travels to Leeds every day!), albeit not the mass employers that York used to have.

However I do not think York council policy good or bad should affect my personal ability to go out and improve my lot in life.

I am certainly not going to let them useless tw@ts mess my life up, there are enough things to do that already, they will not be the ones that get the better of me by their own useless policy/ strategy/implementat

ion.
Couldn’t and didn’t put it better myself Kevin! . I personally find it a crying shame. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Sorry my comments have gone off topic.
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Turvey[/bold] wrote: ‘carpon says... I respect your opinion Kevin but stick to my convictions. I was born in York and have lived her most of my life but also experienced other places within the UK and the world. Unfortunately I view York as a museum, living in the past with limited vision to the future. I agree totally with your comments regarding self-discipline and strategy/planning/ac tion into your life etc, but what really do we have in York now? . No industry, limited infrastructure, a reliance on tourism for part time and minimum wage work. Councilors **** with each other to try and gain political advantage over stupid things like closing a bridge! Leeds had vision and has invested and grown; York by contrast has been left behind. Mortgages in York NOW, don’t come from minimum wage families.’ In a way we agree! I think it’s up to people to improve their own lives irrespective of the outside influences. You are stating that the opportunities to do this are limited in this city and that the present York council does not help in this regard. Correct York council do not help at all only hinder, but there are real mortgage paying jobs here and around the locale within a reasonable commute (my next door neighbor travels to Leeds every day!), albeit not the mass employers that York used to have. However I do not think York council policy good or bad should affect my personal ability to go out and improve my lot in life. I am certainly not going to let them useless tw@ts mess my life up, there are enough things to do that already, they will not be the ones that get the better of me by their own useless policy/ strategy/implementat ion.[/p][/quote]Couldn’t and didn’t put it better myself Kevin! . I personally find it a crying shame. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Sorry my comments have gone off topic. carpon

3:13pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Bianca123 says...

How come you have put no court orders to non payments of rent arrears!! Is that why I was at court on 31st oct for that exact thing
How come you have put no court orders to non payments of rent arrears!! Is that why I was at court on 31st oct for that exact thing Bianca123

3:49pm Tue 10 Dec 13

VinceBlack says...

Yet again people whinging about a situation that is, in a lot of cases, within their means to resolve. Don't like the small house the government is offering you? Work harder to buy or rent your own.

Why should taxpayers provide a house bigger than they need? In the majority of cases they could go and work, I know several profoundly disabled people who still work hard and earn a good living to support themselves (I mention this as the muesli knitters will no doubt jump up and down citing disabled people, conveniently ignoring the lazy, workshy and professional breeders).
Yet again people whinging about a situation that is, in a lot of cases, within their means to resolve. Don't like the small house the government is offering you? Work harder to buy or rent your own. Why should taxpayers provide a house bigger than they need? In the majority of cases they could go and work, I know several profoundly disabled people who still work hard and earn a good living to support themselves (I mention this as the muesli knitters will no doubt jump up and down citing disabled people, conveniently ignoring the lazy, workshy and professional breeders). VinceBlack

5:12pm Tue 10 Dec 13

carpon says...

VinceBlack wrote:
Yet again people whinging about a situation that is, in a lot of cases, within their means to resolve. Don't like the small house the government is offering you? Work harder to buy or rent your own.

Why should taxpayers provide a house bigger than they need? In the majority of cases they could go and work, I know several profoundly disabled people who still work hard and earn a good living to support themselves (I mention this as the muesli knitters will no doubt jump up and down citing disabled people, conveniently ignoring the lazy, workshy and professional breeders).
Tax payers DO NOT pay for council or social houses !
[quote][p][bold]VinceBlack[/bold] wrote: Yet again people whinging about a situation that is, in a lot of cases, within their means to resolve. Don't like the small house the government is offering you? Work harder to buy or rent your own. Why should taxpayers provide a house bigger than they need? In the majority of cases they could go and work, I know several profoundly disabled people who still work hard and earn a good living to support themselves (I mention this as the muesli knitters will no doubt jump up and down citing disabled people, conveniently ignoring the lazy, workshy and professional breeders).[/p][/quote]Tax payers DO NOT pay for council or social houses ! carpon

5:27pm Tue 10 Dec 13

VinceBlack says...

carpon wrote:
VinceBlack wrote:
Yet again people whinging about a situation that is, in a lot of cases, within their means to resolve. Don't like the small house the government is offering you? Work harder to buy or rent your own.

Why should taxpayers provide a house bigger than they need? In the majority of cases they could go and work, I know several profoundly disabled people who still work hard and earn a good living to support themselves (I mention this as the muesli knitters will no doubt jump up and down citing disabled people, conveniently ignoring the lazy, workshy and professional breeders).
Tax payers DO NOT pay for council or social houses !
Oh really?

And where do you suggest the money comes from?

The magic housing fairy?
[quote][p][bold]carpon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VinceBlack[/bold] wrote: Yet again people whinging about a situation that is, in a lot of cases, within their means to resolve. Don't like the small house the government is offering you? Work harder to buy or rent your own. Why should taxpayers provide a house bigger than they need? In the majority of cases they could go and work, I know several profoundly disabled people who still work hard and earn a good living to support themselves (I mention this as the muesli knitters will no doubt jump up and down citing disabled people, conveniently ignoring the lazy, workshy and professional breeders).[/p][/quote]Tax payers DO NOT pay for council or social houses ![/p][/quote]Oh really? And where do you suggest the money comes from? The magic housing fairy? VinceBlack

3:20am Wed 11 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

MrsHoney wrote:
I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.
People are charged a higher rate but not offered alternative accommodation.... it's all part of George Osbournes idea to make it so "you're better off in work". Obviously being done the spineless way by victimising the poor and vulnerable by removing what little money they have, as opposed to a more effective method that would take more effort to initialise: by raising the minimum wage to a level that reflects rising costs and inflation.
[quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.[/p][/quote]People are charged a higher rate but not offered alternative accommodation.... it's all part of George Osbournes idea to make it so "you're better off in work". Obviously being done the spineless way by victimising the poor and vulnerable by removing what little money they have, as opposed to a more effective method that would take more effort to initialise: by raising the minimum wage to a level that reflects rising costs and inflation. Magicman!

3:22am Wed 11 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

carpon wrote:
The supply of affordable housing and council homes is not subsidised by the taxpayer. Rents are calculated like the private housing market.
Taxpayers are constantly told incorrectly for political gain.
Each case should be judged on its individual needs and circumstances, for this to happen, bureaucracy and labour to implement this would far out weigh the so called “bedroom tax” collected.
This is an immoral form of taxation, once again targeting the most vulnerable people in society. Of course they will be those that will abuse the system like any other form of taxation, Banks and large businesses pay millions to accountants to do just that. The question I would like to ask is: scenario 1, An old lady now lives on her own, In her younger days she was married and has two children. Her husband went out to work and paid tax and insurance all his working life and so did the old lady apart from a few years off work looking after the children and then possibly returned to work part time. The children now are adults and work full time and pay tax and insurance. Rent has been paid in full on this property for say 40 years, if this were a mortgage payment then it would have been paid off years ago. Usually a women will out life her husband and she are now on her own with all the memories of her family in her home. In her later years would it be right to kick her out? , Thankfully she would not have to pay bedroom tax.
Scenario 2, a disabled person regardless of previous mobility ability, is under the age for exemption for bedroom tax, requires a room for a carer to possibly sleep over to take care of this person, is now taxed.
The scenarios could go on and on , but the majority of people in council and social housing pay their rent and provide a home for future tax paying and home buying siblings .
As for the bedroom tax , once again it is immoral .
"once again it is immoral"

Is anybody genuinely suprised that this came along though, considering who we have in current government, really??
[quote][p][bold]carpon[/bold] wrote: The supply of affordable housing and council homes is not subsidised by the taxpayer. Rents are calculated like the private housing market. Taxpayers are constantly told incorrectly for political gain. Each case should be judged on its individual needs and circumstances, for this to happen, bureaucracy and labour to implement this would far out weigh the so called “bedroom tax” collected. This is an immoral form of taxation, once again targeting the most vulnerable people in society. Of course they will be those that will abuse the system like any other form of taxation, Banks and large businesses pay millions to accountants to do just that. The question I would like to ask is: scenario 1, An old lady now lives on her own, In her younger days she was married and has two children. Her husband went out to work and paid tax and insurance all his working life and so did the old lady apart from a few years off work looking after the children and then possibly returned to work part time. The children now are adults and work full time and pay tax and insurance. Rent has been paid in full on this property for say 40 years, if this were a mortgage payment then it would have been paid off years ago. Usually a women will out life her husband and she are now on her own with all the memories of her family in her home. In her later years would it be right to kick her out? , Thankfully she would not have to pay bedroom tax. Scenario 2, a disabled person regardless of previous mobility ability, is under the age for exemption for bedroom tax, requires a room for a carer to possibly sleep over to take care of this person, is now taxed. The scenarios could go on and on , but the majority of people in council and social housing pay their rent and provide a home for future tax paying and home buying siblings . As for the bedroom tax , once again it is immoral .[/p][/quote]"once again it is immoral" Is anybody genuinely suprised that this came along though, considering who we have in current government, really?? Magicman!

9:55am Wed 11 Dec 13

VinceBlack says...

Magicman! wrote:
MrsHoney wrote:
I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.
People are charged a higher rate but not offered alternative accommodation.... it's all part of George Osbournes idea to make it so "you're better off in work". Obviously being done the spineless way by victimising the poor and vulnerable by removing what little money they have, as opposed to a more effective method that would take more effort to initialise: by raising the minimum wage to a level that reflects rising costs and inflation.
The "poor and vulnerable" as you put it have another option, work hard and pay their way.

A radical idea I know.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.[/p][/quote]People are charged a higher rate but not offered alternative accommodation.... it's all part of George Osbournes idea to make it so "you're better off in work". Obviously being done the spineless way by victimising the poor and vulnerable by removing what little money they have, as opposed to a more effective method that would take more effort to initialise: by raising the minimum wage to a level that reflects rising costs and inflation.[/p][/quote]The "poor and vulnerable" as you put it have another option, work hard and pay their way. A radical idea I know. VinceBlack

10:59am Wed 11 Dec 13

Blythespirit says...

VinceBlack wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
MrsHoney wrote:
I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.
People are charged a higher rate but not offered alternative accommodation.... it's all part of George Osbournes idea to make it so "you're better off in work". Obviously being done the spineless way by victimising the poor and vulnerable by removing what little money they have, as opposed to a more effective method that would take more effort to initialise: by raising the minimum wage to a level that reflects rising costs and inflation.
The "poor and vulnerable" as you put it have another option, work hard and pay their way.

A radical idea I know.
As most of the people affected by the 'bedroom tax' are young working families, it rather negates your argument doesn't it? I daresay these people would love to be earning shed-loads of money for the hours they put in, but unfortunately this is not the case. The 'workshy professional breeders' you mention in an earlier comment are not the ones affected by the bedroom tax - they have enough children to fill their room quota! Get yourself an education and stop believing everything you read in the Daily Mail and see on those chav TV programs you obviously sit glued to.
[quote][p][bold]VinceBlack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.[/p][/quote]People are charged a higher rate but not offered alternative accommodation.... it's all part of George Osbournes idea to make it so "you're better off in work". Obviously being done the spineless way by victimising the poor and vulnerable by removing what little money they have, as opposed to a more effective method that would take more effort to initialise: by raising the minimum wage to a level that reflects rising costs and inflation.[/p][/quote]The "poor and vulnerable" as you put it have another option, work hard and pay their way. A radical idea I know.[/p][/quote]As most of the people affected by the 'bedroom tax' are young working families, it rather negates your argument doesn't it? I daresay these people would love to be earning shed-loads of money for the hours they put in, but unfortunately this is not the case. The 'workshy professional breeders' you mention in an earlier comment are not the ones affected by the bedroom tax - they have enough children to fill their room quota! Get yourself an education and stop believing everything you read in the Daily Mail and see on those chav TV programs you obviously sit glued to. Blythespirit

11:36am Wed 11 Dec 13

VinceBlack says...

Blythespirit wrote:
VinceBlack wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
MrsHoney wrote:
I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.
People are charged a higher rate but not offered alternative accommodation.... it's all part of George Osbournes idea to make it so "you're better off in work". Obviously being done the spineless way by victimising the poor and vulnerable by removing what little money they have, as opposed to a more effective method that would take more effort to initialise: by raising the minimum wage to a level that reflects rising costs and inflation.
The "poor and vulnerable" as you put it have another option, work hard and pay their way.

A radical idea I know.
As most of the people affected by the 'bedroom tax' are young working families, it rather negates your argument doesn't it? I daresay these people would love to be earning shed-loads of money for the hours they put in, but unfortunately this is not the case. The 'workshy professional breeders' you mention in an earlier comment are not the ones affected by the bedroom tax - they have enough children to fill their room quota! Get yourself an education and stop believing everything you read in the Daily Mail and see on those chav TV programs you obviously sit glued to.
I have a very good education thank you, which is why I am working in a well paid job and am able to support myself without assistance from the state. I have far better things to do with my time than read the Daily Mail (an accusation usually wheeled out by left wing handwringers) or watching chav TV.

If these people are young and working why have they had families that their wages do not support sufficiently? Having children should be dependent on being able to support them. If their only way of doing so is through other people (taxpayers, the state) supporting them then they should not have had these children.

The sooner people take responsibility for paying their own way the better. For too long too many people expect to have others pay for them, it is wrong, unsustainable and must stop.
[quote][p][bold]Blythespirit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VinceBlack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.[/p][/quote]People are charged a higher rate but not offered alternative accommodation.... it's all part of George Osbournes idea to make it so "you're better off in work". Obviously being done the spineless way by victimising the poor and vulnerable by removing what little money they have, as opposed to a more effective method that would take more effort to initialise: by raising the minimum wage to a level that reflects rising costs and inflation.[/p][/quote]The "poor and vulnerable" as you put it have another option, work hard and pay their way. A radical idea I know.[/p][/quote]As most of the people affected by the 'bedroom tax' are young working families, it rather negates your argument doesn't it? I daresay these people would love to be earning shed-loads of money for the hours they put in, but unfortunately this is not the case. The 'workshy professional breeders' you mention in an earlier comment are not the ones affected by the bedroom tax - they have enough children to fill their room quota! Get yourself an education and stop believing everything you read in the Daily Mail and see on those chav TV programs you obviously sit glued to.[/p][/quote]I have a very good education thank you, which is why I am working in a well paid job and am able to support myself without assistance from the state. I have far better things to do with my time than read the Daily Mail (an accusation usually wheeled out by left wing handwringers) or watching chav TV. If these people are young and working why have they had families that their wages do not support sufficiently? Having children should be dependent on being able to support them. If their only way of doing so is through other people (taxpayers, the state) supporting them then they should not have had these children. The sooner people take responsibility for paying their own way the better. For too long too many people expect to have others pay for them, it is wrong, unsustainable and must stop. VinceBlack

6:14pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Blythespirit says...

VinceBlack wrote:
Blythespirit wrote:
VinceBlack wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
MrsHoney wrote:
I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.
People are charged a higher rate but not offered alternative accommodation.... it's all part of George Osbournes idea to make it so "you're better off in work". Obviously being done the spineless way by victimising the poor and vulnerable by removing what little money they have, as opposed to a more effective method that would take more effort to initialise: by raising the minimum wage to a level that reflects rising costs and inflation.
The "poor and vulnerable" as you put it have another option, work hard and pay their way.

A radical idea I know.
As most of the people affected by the 'bedroom tax' are young working families, it rather negates your argument doesn't it? I daresay these people would love to be earning shed-loads of money for the hours they put in, but unfortunately this is not the case. The 'workshy professional breeders' you mention in an earlier comment are not the ones affected by the bedroom tax - they have enough children to fill their room quota! Get yourself an education and stop believing everything you read in the Daily Mail and see on those chav TV programs you obviously sit glued to.
I have a very good education thank you, which is why I am working in a well paid job and am able to support myself without assistance from the state. I have far better things to do with my time than read the Daily Mail (an accusation usually wheeled out by left wing handwringers) or watching chav TV.

If these people are young and working why have they had families that their wages do not support sufficiently? Having children should be dependent on being able to support them. If their only way of doing so is through other people (taxpayers, the state) supporting them then they should not have had these children.

The sooner people take responsibility for paying their own way the better. For too long too many people expect to have others pay for them, it is wrong, unsustainable and must stop.
Your arguments are laughable. Before the 'bedroom tax' these families were managing on their incomes, but having to find an extra hundred quid a month or so is seriously crippling for them. You seem to be a classic example of the self-satisfied 'I've done everything the right way, I'm all right and b****r everyone else' brigade. You might be doing fine at the moment but if you found yourself suddenly unemployed, through no fault of your own, you would be surprised how quickly it would all fall apart. I work with the unemployed. Some of them are in their fifties and previously considered themselves to have their lives well sorted and never had to claim anything from the state either. Suddenly they find themselves unable to meet mortgage repayments, unable to pay the utility bills and unable to replace all the things that suddenly start going wrong around the house. A old tutor of mine once said to us that we should never judge another man until we have walked in his shoes. This is the soundest piece of advice I have ever been given. You cannot compare your life or achievements to others who may not have had the same opportunities as yourself. This is not 'left wing hand-wringing' just a basic fact. I had the opportunity of a university education with a grant to help me study. I was able to buy a house in my early twenties and stay at home with my kids, on my husband's wage, until they started school. There is no way my own children will be able to do this. My eldest has just finished uni and already has a whole load of student debt... no grant for him. He will have to work years in his chosen profession before he can think of buying a house. The fact is a couple of generations, post war had it remarkably easy and they are the ones complaining the loudest about their taxes being spent on those less fortunate than themselves.
[quote][p][bold]VinceBlack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blythespirit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VinceBlack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.[/p][/quote]People are charged a higher rate but not offered alternative accommodation.... it's all part of George Osbournes idea to make it so "you're better off in work". Obviously being done the spineless way by victimising the poor and vulnerable by removing what little money they have, as opposed to a more effective method that would take more effort to initialise: by raising the minimum wage to a level that reflects rising costs and inflation.[/p][/quote]The "poor and vulnerable" as you put it have another option, work hard and pay their way. A radical idea I know.[/p][/quote]As most of the people affected by the 'bedroom tax' are young working families, it rather negates your argument doesn't it? I daresay these people would love to be earning shed-loads of money for the hours they put in, but unfortunately this is not the case. The 'workshy professional breeders' you mention in an earlier comment are not the ones affected by the bedroom tax - they have enough children to fill their room quota! Get yourself an education and stop believing everything you read in the Daily Mail and see on those chav TV programs you obviously sit glued to.[/p][/quote]I have a very good education thank you, which is why I am working in a well paid job and am able to support myself without assistance from the state. I have far better things to do with my time than read the Daily Mail (an accusation usually wheeled out by left wing handwringers) or watching chav TV. If these people are young and working why have they had families that their wages do not support sufficiently? Having children should be dependent on being able to support them. If their only way of doing so is through other people (taxpayers, the state) supporting them then they should not have had these children. The sooner people take responsibility for paying their own way the better. For too long too many people expect to have others pay for them, it is wrong, unsustainable and must stop.[/p][/quote]Your arguments are laughable. Before the 'bedroom tax' these families were managing on their incomes, but having to find an extra hundred quid a month or so is seriously crippling for them. You seem to be a classic example of the self-satisfied 'I've done everything the right way, I'm all right and b****r everyone else' brigade. You might be doing fine at the moment but if you found yourself suddenly unemployed, through no fault of your own, you would be surprised how quickly it would all fall apart. I work with the unemployed. Some of them are in their fifties and previously considered themselves to have their lives well sorted and never had to claim anything from the state either. Suddenly they find themselves unable to meet mortgage repayments, unable to pay the utility bills and unable to replace all the things that suddenly start going wrong around the house. A old tutor of mine once said to us that we should never judge another man until we have walked in his shoes. This is the soundest piece of advice I have ever been given. You cannot compare your life or achievements to others who may not have had the same opportunities as yourself. This is not 'left wing hand-wringing' just a basic fact. I had the opportunity of a university education with a grant to help me study. I was able to buy a house in my early twenties and stay at home with my kids, on my husband's wage, until they started school. There is no way my own children will be able to do this. My eldest has just finished uni and already has a whole load of student debt... no grant for him. He will have to work years in his chosen profession before he can think of buying a house. The fact is a couple of generations, post war had it remarkably easy and they are the ones complaining the loudest about their taxes being spent on those less fortunate than themselves. Blythespirit

9:54am Sun 15 Dec 13

browbeaten says...

Well i think it is rather nice of the government. Moving people in to smaller houses if they dont need the space they have. There are plenty of people on waiting lists needing more bedrooms. Additionally if these poor done by people are on benifits and finding it hard to cope financially i would have thought a smaller house and consequent lower heating bills would be welcomed by these people rather than jolly well bleating on about being turfed out of a house they don't own in the first place !
Well i think it is rather nice of the government. Moving people in to smaller houses if they dont need the space they have. There are plenty of people on waiting lists needing more bedrooms. Additionally if these poor done by people are on benifits and finding it hard to cope financially i would have thought a smaller house and consequent lower heating bills would be welcomed by these people rather than jolly well bleating on about being turfed out of a house they don't own in the first place ! browbeaten

5:54pm Sun 15 Dec 13

browbeaten says...

Blythespirit wrote:
VinceBlack wrote:
Blythespirit wrote:
VinceBlack wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
MrsHoney wrote:
I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.
People are charged a higher rate but not offered alternative accommodation.... it's all part of George Osbournes idea to make it so "you're better off in work". Obviously being done the spineless way by victimising the poor and vulnerable by removing what little money they have, as opposed to a more effective method that would take more effort to initialise: by raising the minimum wage to a level that reflects rising costs and inflation.
The "poor and vulnerable" as you put it have another option, work hard and pay their way.

A radical idea I know.
As most of the people affected by the 'bedroom tax' are young working families, it rather negates your argument doesn't it? I daresay these people would love to be earning shed-loads of money for the hours they put in, but unfortunately this is not the case. The 'workshy professional breeders' you mention in an earlier comment are not the ones affected by the bedroom tax - they have enough children to fill their room quota! Get yourself an education and stop believing everything you read in the Daily Mail and see on those chav TV programs you obviously sit glued to.
I have a very good education thank you, which is why I am working in a well paid job and am able to support myself without assistance from the state. I have far better things to do with my time than read the Daily Mail (an accusation usually wheeled out by left wing handwringers) or watching chav TV.

If these people are young and working why have they had families that their wages do not support sufficiently? Having children should be dependent on being able to support them. If their only way of doing so is through other people (taxpayers, the state) supporting them then they should not have had these children.

The sooner people take responsibility for paying their own way the better. For too long too many people expect to have others pay for them, it is wrong, unsustainable and must stop.
Your arguments are laughable. Before the 'bedroom tax' these families were managing on their incomes, but having to find an extra hundred quid a month or so is seriously crippling for them. You seem to be a classic example of the self-satisfied 'I've done everything the right way, I'm all right and b****r everyone else' brigade. You might be doing fine at the moment but if you found yourself suddenly unemployed, through no fault of your own, you would be surprised how quickly it would all fall apart. I work with the unemployed. Some of them are in their fifties and previously considered themselves to have their lives well sorted and never had to claim anything from the state either. Suddenly they find themselves unable to meet mortgage repayments, unable to pay the utility bills and unable to replace all the things that suddenly start going wrong around the house. A old tutor of mine once said to us that we should never judge another man until we have walked in his shoes. This is the soundest piece of advice I have ever been given. You cannot compare your life or achievements to others who may not have had the same opportunities as yourself. This is not 'left wing hand-wringing' just a basic fact. I had the opportunity of a university education with a grant to help me study. I was able to buy a house in my early twenties and stay at home with my kids, on my husband's wage, until they started school. There is no way my own children will be able to do this. My eldest has just finished uni and already has a whole load of student debt... no grant for him. He will have to work years in his chosen profession before he can think of buying a house. The fact is a couple of generations, post war had it remarkably easy and they are the ones complaining the loudest about their taxes being spent on those less fortunate than themselves.
Socialist codswallop. What about the thousands of families who are desperate for a larger house.
Perhaps if had not let immigation run riot during its turn in playing with the train set by labour houses in general might not be in such short supply !
[quote][p][bold]Blythespirit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VinceBlack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blythespirit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VinceBlack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrsHoney[/bold] wrote: I must admit, I don't know the ins and outs of this. Are people offered alternative smaller housing? Because I don't see how you can charge someone for an extra room if they haven't anywhere else to go, that's unfair. However, if they have been offered a smaller place and turned it down then I do think it's only fair they pay more. The idea behind council housing is to provide emergency affordable housing for those in need, not permanent homes.[/p][/quote]People are charged a higher rate but not offered alternative accommodation.... it's all part of George Osbournes idea to make it so "you're better off in work". Obviously being done the spineless way by victimising the poor and vulnerable by removing what little money they have, as opposed to a more effective method that would take more effort to initialise: by raising the minimum wage to a level that reflects rising costs and inflation.[/p][/quote]The "poor and vulnerable" as you put it have another option, work hard and pay their way. A radical idea I know.[/p][/quote]As most of the people affected by the 'bedroom tax' are young working families, it rather negates your argument doesn't it? I daresay these people would love to be earning shed-loads of money for the hours they put in, but unfortunately this is not the case. The 'workshy professional breeders' you mention in an earlier comment are not the ones affected by the bedroom tax - they have enough children to fill their room quota! Get yourself an education and stop believing everything you read in the Daily Mail and see on those chav TV programs you obviously sit glued to.[/p][/quote]I have a very good education thank you, which is why I am working in a well paid job and am able to support myself without assistance from the state. I have far better things to do with my time than read the Daily Mail (an accusation usually wheeled out by left wing handwringers) or watching chav TV. If these people are young and working why have they had families that their wages do not support sufficiently? Having children should be dependent on being able to support them. If their only way of doing so is through other people (taxpayers, the state) supporting them then they should not have had these children. The sooner people take responsibility for paying their own way the better. For too long too many people expect to have others pay for them, it is wrong, unsustainable and must stop.[/p][/quote]Your arguments are laughable. Before the 'bedroom tax' these families were managing on their incomes, but having to find an extra hundred quid a month or so is seriously crippling for them. You seem to be a classic example of the self-satisfied 'I've done everything the right way, I'm all right and b****r everyone else' brigade. You might be doing fine at the moment but if you found yourself suddenly unemployed, through no fault of your own, you would be surprised how quickly it would all fall apart. I work with the unemployed. Some of them are in their fifties and previously considered themselves to have their lives well sorted and never had to claim anything from the state either. Suddenly they find themselves unable to meet mortgage repayments, unable to pay the utility bills and unable to replace all the things that suddenly start going wrong around the house. A old tutor of mine once said to us that we should never judge another man until we have walked in his shoes. This is the soundest piece of advice I have ever been given. You cannot compare your life or achievements to others who may not have had the same opportunities as yourself. This is not 'left wing hand-wringing' just a basic fact. I had the opportunity of a university education with a grant to help me study. I was able to buy a house in my early twenties and stay at home with my kids, on my husband's wage, until they started school. There is no way my own children will be able to do this. My eldest has just finished uni and already has a whole load of student debt... no grant for him. He will have to work years in his chosen profession before he can think of buying a house. The fact is a couple of generations, post war had it remarkably easy and they are the ones complaining the loudest about their taxes being spent on those less fortunate than themselves.[/p][/quote]Socialist codswallop. What about the thousands of families who are desperate for a larger house. Perhaps if had not let immigation run riot during its turn in playing with the train set by labour houses in general might not be in such short supply ! browbeaten

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree