More York council tenants seeking emergency help with rent

More York council tenants seeking emergency help with rent

More York council tenants seeking emergency help with rent

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , mark.stead@thepress.co.uk

THE number of York tenants seeking emergency help with their rent has more than trebled since controversial welfare reforms were introduced, new findings have revealed.

The city has also seen final demands for council tax almost double and a 56 per cent increase in summonses issued following the changes, including the introduction last April of the spare-room subsidy or so-called “bedroom tax”.

A report to be discussed by the Local Government North Yorkshire and York committee tomorrow on the impact of the reforms said most councils in the region have had more applications to their “discretionary housing payments” schemes this year, compared with 2012/13.

The system provides help for those who receive housing benefit but are struggling to pay their rent.

It said 268 applications were made to City of York Council between January 2012 and 2013, but this rose to 830 in the 12 months up to January 31 this year.

The authority expects to have a “modest underspend” of £10,000 in its 2013/14 budget for this area, but the report by Neil Irving, North Yorkshire County Council’s assistant director for policy and partnerships, said Hambleton District Council had almost spent its £85,775 budget, while Selby District Council has 15 per cent of its funds – £13,739 – left.

Although York’s overall council tax collection rate this year is broadly the same as 2012/13 and it expects to “break even”, the number of reminders issued between the start of last April and the end of January increased by 1,949 or 15 per cent.

Final notices increased by 687 – 91 per cent – and 4,016 more summonses have been sent out. Coun Dafydd Williams, the York council’s cabinet member for finance, said: “Changes which have resulted in many people on low incomes having to pay a proportion of council tax have led to an inevitable increase in reminders and summonses, which the council has a duty to issue, and these residents having to pay is the result of huge decreases in Government funding and specifically a reduction in council tax support funding.”

He said the authority had provided help through the York Financial Assistance Scheme, which will receive more funding to in 2014/15, and “tailor-made arrangements” for tenants to clear arrears.

Last week, an independent review of the benefit system in York claimed Government sanctions meant vulnerable claimants were suffering and were “debilitating” rather than “incentivising” employment.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:30am Thu 6 Mar 14

asd says...

Lets wait for the, they all have sky, smoke and drink all day, lazy people comments. People are genuinely are living on the brink of going homeless. Use of food banks has rocket that they have opened another one. This Goverment is using Austerity to butcher the poor whilst still borrowing more than the previous government ever did, nice if your rich and get nice tax breaks though
Lets wait for the, they all have sky, smoke and drink all day, lazy people comments. People are genuinely are living on the brink of going homeless. Use of food banks has rocket that they have opened another one. This Goverment is using Austerity to butcher the poor whilst still borrowing more than the previous government ever did, nice if your rich and get nice tax breaks though asd
  • Score: 16

10:31am Thu 6 Mar 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.
Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -22

10:33am Thu 6 Mar 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

asd wrote:
Lets wait for the, they all have sky, smoke and drink all day, lazy people comments. People are genuinely are living on the brink of going homeless. Use of food banks has rocket that they have opened another one. This Goverment is using Austerity to butcher the poor whilst still borrowing more than the previous government ever did, nice if your rich and get nice tax breaks though
What tax breaks? Isn't the 40% tax reducing to 33k now? Even middle earners are getting it tough. I manage to scrape by as I budget. I live within my means.
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: Lets wait for the, they all have sky, smoke and drink all day, lazy people comments. People are genuinely are living on the brink of going homeless. Use of food banks has rocket that they have opened another one. This Goverment is using Austerity to butcher the poor whilst still borrowing more than the previous government ever did, nice if your rich and get nice tax breaks though[/p][/quote]What tax breaks? Isn't the 40% tax reducing to 33k now? Even middle earners are getting it tough. I manage to scrape by as I budget. I live within my means. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -4

11:05am Thu 6 Mar 14

Kevin Turvey says...

‘Archiebold the 1st says...
Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.’

So it would seem that even the safety net has a further safety net, therefore there is no cause and effect education to the parasites on society.

Therefore proves my theory that if all safety nets were removed (excepting the rare dire need cases eg. disabled, seriously ill etc.) people would miraculously be able to manage.

They may be skint, but the benefits system is not designed for a way to get rich or to live long term, that’s what WORK is for!

Unfortunately too many people do not understand about work, personal responsibility and pride. Far too many excuses and not actual reasons.

Never mind I am sure the Jo Ro Foundation will take on people into their properties who have a history of not paying their rent to the council….. I think not, they are a business in effect so are not that stupid to take on liabilities!



‘asd says...
Lets wait for the, they all have sky, smoke and drink all day, lazy people comments. ‘

Did that fulfill your request?
‘Archiebold the 1st says... Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.’ So it would seem that even the safety net has a further safety net, therefore there is no cause and effect education to the parasites on society. Therefore proves my theory that if all safety nets were removed (excepting the rare dire need cases eg. disabled, seriously ill etc.) people would miraculously be able to manage. They may be skint, but the benefits system is not designed for a way to get rich or to live long term, that’s what WORK is for! Unfortunately too many people do not understand about work, personal responsibility and pride. Far too many excuses and not actual reasons. Never mind I am sure the Jo Ro Foundation will take on people into their properties who have a history of not paying their rent to the council….. I think not, they are a business in effect so are not that stupid to take on liabilities! ‘asd says... Lets wait for the, they all have sky, smoke and drink all day, lazy people comments. ‘ Did that fulfill your request? Kevin Turvey
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Blythespirit says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.
You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.[/p][/quote]You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top. Blythespirit
  • Score: 30

12:29pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Daisy75 says...

Blythespirit wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.
You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.
Not only that, but much of the housing stock was built to accommodate the larger families at that time, so there are few properties for single people, and these are the very people for whom the housing benefit is at an impractical level for renting. The price gap rental wise between a single bed flat and two bed on the open market is around £50 per month at most- not much but insurmountable if on benefits.
[quote][p][bold]Blythespirit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.[/p][/quote]You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.[/p][/quote]Not only that, but much of the housing stock was built to accommodate the larger families at that time, so there are few properties for single people, and these are the very people for whom the housing benefit is at an impractical level for renting. The price gap rental wise between a single bed flat and two bed on the open market is around £50 per month at most- not much but insurmountable if on benefits. Daisy75
  • Score: 5

12:32pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Blythespirit wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.
You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.
How many of the 800 plus fit into the working category? Again this all goes back to my first basic point I raised yesterday. Live within your means? This means do not have a kid if you can not afford them. Do not move into a large house if you can not afford the rent. Buy a bike instead of a car? If you expect me to feel sorry for these people who get given a subsidised house to live in yet can not manage their money better or indeed get a better job you're mistaken. I shared a room when I was little! My nieces still do out of choice. So why get a bigger house on the state then you actually need? Greed! Because its free! Now everyone has clocked onto it its too little too late. And just so you know was one of them given a final council tax reminder. Not because I couldn’t afford it. Because them kept messing up my bill.

Your argument is people are being hit by a rule that they were aware of for a year prior to it being implemented and yet could not find another council house or swap one? This is why each day on fb they are still being picky about where they want to swap to, the area, garden size, i go back to my point beggars can not be choosers. Or find a better job? if people have no aspirations in life to provide for their children and give them a good life and rely on the state that’s their issue. If I was going to be charged additional money and had time to sort it I would?
[quote][p][bold]Blythespirit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.[/p][/quote]You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.[/p][/quote]How many of the 800 plus fit into the working category? Again this all goes back to my first basic point I raised yesterday. Live within your means? This means do not have a kid if you can not afford them. Do not move into a large house if you can not afford the rent. Buy a bike instead of a car? If you expect me to feel sorry for these people who get given a subsidised house to live in yet can not manage their money better or indeed get a better job you're mistaken. I shared a room when I was little! My nieces still do out of choice. So why get a bigger house on the state then you actually need? Greed! Because its free! Now everyone has clocked onto it its too little too late. And just so you know was one of them given a final council tax reminder. Not because I couldn’t afford it. Because them kept messing up my bill. Your argument is people are being hit by a rule that they were aware of for a year prior to it being implemented and yet could not find another council house or swap one? This is why each day on fb they are still being picky about where they want to swap to, the area, garden size, i go back to my point beggars can not be choosers. Or find a better job? if people have no aspirations in life to provide for their children and give them a good life and rely on the state that’s their issue. If I was going to be charged additional money and had time to sort it I would? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -11

12:37pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Daisy75 wrote:
Blythespirit wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.
You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.
Not only that, but much of the housing stock was built to accommodate the larger families at that time, so there are few properties for single people, and these are the very people for whom the housing benefit is at an impractical level for renting. The price gap rental wise between a single bed flat and two bed on the open market is around £50 per month at most- not much but insurmountable if on benefits.
but they get it at a reduced rate? tell me how much rent a single person pays in a 2 bed flat? Funny you should mention this as poorer people or students tend to share a house. have a room each.. this costs around £100-£200 per month (£125 a friend got a single room for)? so what is their excuse? if they move out do they loose some of their benifits?
[quote][p][bold]Daisy75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blythespirit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.[/p][/quote]You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.[/p][/quote]Not only that, but much of the housing stock was built to accommodate the larger families at that time, so there are few properties for single people, and these are the very people for whom the housing benefit is at an impractical level for renting. The price gap rental wise between a single bed flat and two bed on the open market is around £50 per month at most- not much but insurmountable if on benefits.[/p][/quote]but they get it at a reduced rate? tell me how much rent a single person pays in a 2 bed flat? Funny you should mention this as poorer people or students tend to share a house. have a room each.. this costs around £100-£200 per month (£125 a friend got a single room for)? so what is their excuse? if they move out do they loose some of their benifits? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -5

12:59pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Teabag1 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Blythespirit wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.
You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.
How many of the 800 plus fit into the working category? Again this all goes back to my first basic point I raised yesterday. Live within your means? This means do not have a kid if you can not afford them. Do not move into a large house if you can not afford the rent. Buy a bike instead of a car? If you expect me to feel sorry for these people who get given a subsidised house to live in yet can not manage their money better or indeed get a better job you're mistaken. I shared a room when I was little! My nieces still do out of choice. So why get a bigger house on the state then you actually need? Greed! Because its free! Now everyone has clocked onto it its too little too late. And just so you know was one of them given a final council tax reminder. Not because I couldn’t afford it. Because them kept messing up my bill.

Your argument is people are being hit by a rule that they were aware of for a year prior to it being implemented and yet could not find another council house or swap one? This is why each day on fb they are still being picky about where they want to swap to, the area, garden size, i go back to my point beggars can not be choosers. Or find a better job? if people have no aspirations in life to provide for their children and give them a good life and rely on the state that’s their issue. If I was going to be charged additional money and had time to sort it I would?
Your very black and white Archiebold the 1st, a meat and two veg kind of person really and very unhappy with the hand they have been delt.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blythespirit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.[/p][/quote]You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.[/p][/quote]How many of the 800 plus fit into the working category? Again this all goes back to my first basic point I raised yesterday. Live within your means? This means do not have a kid if you can not afford them. Do not move into a large house if you can not afford the rent. Buy a bike instead of a car? If you expect me to feel sorry for these people who get given a subsidised house to live in yet can not manage their money better or indeed get a better job you're mistaken. I shared a room when I was little! My nieces still do out of choice. So why get a bigger house on the state then you actually need? Greed! Because its free! Now everyone has clocked onto it its too little too late. And just so you know was one of them given a final council tax reminder. Not because I couldn’t afford it. Because them kept messing up my bill. Your argument is people are being hit by a rule that they were aware of for a year prior to it being implemented and yet could not find another council house or swap one? This is why each day on fb they are still being picky about where they want to swap to, the area, garden size, i go back to my point beggars can not be choosers. Or find a better job? if people have no aspirations in life to provide for their children and give them a good life and rely on the state that’s their issue. If I was going to be charged additional money and had time to sort it I would?[/p][/quote]Your very black and white Archiebold the 1st, a meat and two veg kind of person really and very unhappy with the hand they have been delt. Teabag1
  • Score: 9

1:19pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Teabag1 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Blythespirit wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.
You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.
How many of the 800 plus fit into the working category? Again this all goes back to my first basic point I raised yesterday. Live within your means? This means do not have a kid if you can not afford them. Do not move into a large house if you can not afford the rent. Buy a bike instead of a car? If you expect me to feel sorry for these people who get given a subsidised house to live in yet can not manage their money better or indeed get a better job you're mistaken. I shared a room when I was little! My nieces still do out of choice. So why get a bigger house on the state then you actually need? Greed! Because its free! Now everyone has clocked onto it its too little too late. And just so you know was one of them given a final council tax reminder. Not because I couldn’t afford it. Because them kept messing up my bill. Your argument is people are being hit by a rule that they were aware of for a year prior to it being implemented and yet could not find another council house or swap one? This is why each day on fb they are still being picky about where they want to swap to, the area, garden size, i go back to my point beggars can not be choosers. Or find a better job? if people have no aspirations in life to provide for their children and give them a good life and rely on the state that’s their issue. If I was going to be charged additional money and had time to sort it I would?
Your very black and white Archiebold the 1st, a meat and two veg kind of person really and very unhappy with the hand they have been delt.
i'm more then happy with the hand I am dealt? which is why I believe if a simpleton like me can manage others can. I've lived in all types of places in the past. 1 bed flat in a dump to sharing a penthouse with a mate. The fact of the matter is I sourced my accommodation on the basis of what i could afford? why cant others? I don’t want to hear all this 1 bed room apartments are expensive to rent etc as look around there are rooms to rent everywhere?

All this is, is another example of people living beyond their means (its a key term that as it is the underlying problem) and prioritising other things rather then paying the council (which are already subsidising their existence)
[quote][p][bold]Teabag1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blythespirit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.[/p][/quote]You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.[/p][/quote]How many of the 800 plus fit into the working category? Again this all goes back to my first basic point I raised yesterday. Live within your means? This means do not have a kid if you can not afford them. Do not move into a large house if you can not afford the rent. Buy a bike instead of a car? If you expect me to feel sorry for these people who get given a subsidised house to live in yet can not manage their money better or indeed get a better job you're mistaken. I shared a room when I was little! My nieces still do out of choice. So why get a bigger house on the state then you actually need? Greed! Because its free! Now everyone has clocked onto it its too little too late. And just so you know was one of them given a final council tax reminder. Not because I couldn’t afford it. Because them kept messing up my bill. Your argument is people are being hit by a rule that they were aware of for a year prior to it being implemented and yet could not find another council house or swap one? This is why each day on fb they are still being picky about where they want to swap to, the area, garden size, i go back to my point beggars can not be choosers. Or find a better job? if people have no aspirations in life to provide for their children and give them a good life and rely on the state that’s their issue. If I was going to be charged additional money and had time to sort it I would?[/p][/quote]Your very black and white Archiebold the 1st, a meat and two veg kind of person really and very unhappy with the hand they have been delt.[/p][/quote]i'm more then happy with the hand I am dealt? which is why I believe if a simpleton like me can manage others can. I've lived in all types of places in the past. 1 bed flat in a dump to sharing a penthouse with a mate. The fact of the matter is I sourced my accommodation on the basis of what i could afford? why cant others? I don’t want to hear all this 1 bed room apartments are expensive to rent etc as look around there are rooms to rent everywhere? All this is, is another example of people living beyond their means (its a key term that as it is the underlying problem) and prioritising other things rather then paying the council (which are already subsidising their existence) Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -7

2:04pm Thu 6 Mar 14

old_geezer says...

Archiebold, even if you believe in the principle of the bedroom tax, its implementation has been botched - the disabled lady with a hoist that takes up a room, grandparents who host grandkids whose parents have sporadic health issues, parents with children who may move out for a college course then need to come back, people who sometimes need carers to stay ... a 101 everyday situations not catered for. Also you wonder why people have children who can't afford them - maybe a few do, but many have changes like illness, redundancy, marital breakdown etc.

Life is not as simple as you'd like to think!
Archiebold, even if you believe in the principle of the bedroom tax, its implementation has been botched - the disabled lady with a hoist that takes up a room, grandparents who host grandkids whose parents have sporadic health issues, parents with children who may move out for a college course then need to come back, people who sometimes need carers to stay ... a 101 everyday situations not catered for. Also you wonder why people have children who can't afford them - maybe a few do, but many have changes like illness, redundancy, marital breakdown etc. Life is not as simple as you'd like to think! old_geezer
  • Score: 11

2:26pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

old_geezer wrote:
Archiebold, even if you believe in the principle of the bedroom tax, its implementation has been botched - the disabled lady with a hoist that takes up a room, grandparents who host grandkids whose parents have sporadic health issues, parents with children who may move out for a college course then need to come back, people who sometimes need carers to stay ... a 101 everyday situations not catered for. Also you wonder why people have children who can't afford them - maybe a few do, but many have changes like illness, redundancy, marital breakdown etc. Life is not as simple as you'd like to think!
I’ve never said I agree with it... I said if I knew it was coming I’d look for a new place or prepare for it. Out of all the scenarios you have listed how many of the 800+ do you think they apply to? Also each one is based on middle to old age. While I can appreciate that more elderly do need council assistance as you mentioned above, I’d suggest that the younger people are the ones abusing and struggling with the system, a council house seems to be a lifestyle choice? They are not intended for people to live in forever? They are intended for people in need until they get back on their feet? If people want to avoid these bedroom taxes maybe its time they stop paying the state and either save up and buy a place of their own or rent privately and pay council tax? If people want to live on benefits for their life they need to apply to the rules their land lord sets. And please take this as me speaking about the majority not the few.
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: Archiebold, even if you believe in the principle of the bedroom tax, its implementation has been botched - the disabled lady with a hoist that takes up a room, grandparents who host grandkids whose parents have sporadic health issues, parents with children who may move out for a college course then need to come back, people who sometimes need carers to stay ... a 101 everyday situations not catered for. Also you wonder why people have children who can't afford them - maybe a few do, but many have changes like illness, redundancy, marital breakdown etc. Life is not as simple as you'd like to think![/p][/quote]I’ve never said I agree with it... I said if I knew it was coming I’d look for a new place or prepare for it. Out of all the scenarios you have listed how many of the 800+ do you think they apply to? Also each one is based on middle to old age. While I can appreciate that more elderly do need council assistance as you mentioned above, I’d suggest that the younger people are the ones abusing and struggling with the system, a council house seems to be a lifestyle choice? They are not intended for people to live in forever? They are intended for people in need until they get back on their feet? If people want to avoid these bedroom taxes maybe its time they stop paying the state and either save up and buy a place of their own or rent privately and pay council tax? If people want to live on benefits for their life they need to apply to the rules their land lord sets. And please take this as me speaking about the majority not the few. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -8

2:40pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Big Bad Wolf says...

old_geezer wrote:
Archiebold, even if you believe in the principle of the bedroom tax, its implementation has been botched - the disabled lady with a hoist that takes up a room, grandparents who host grandkids whose parents have sporadic health issues, parents with children who may move out for a college course then need to come back, people who sometimes need carers to stay ... a 101 everyday situations not catered for. Also you wonder why people have children who can't afford them - maybe a few do, but many have changes like illness, redundancy, marital breakdown etc.

Life is not as simple as you'd like to think!
There are indeed exceptions BUT...
An awful lot of families are having to live in B&B accommodation and an awful lot of single people are living in three bedroom houses.
The aim of this is to get families to live in houses that suite their needs or pay a premium for the privilege of living in a larger one.

What is unfair about that?
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: Archiebold, even if you believe in the principle of the bedroom tax, its implementation has been botched - the disabled lady with a hoist that takes up a room, grandparents who host grandkids whose parents have sporadic health issues, parents with children who may move out for a college course then need to come back, people who sometimes need carers to stay ... a 101 everyday situations not catered for. Also you wonder why people have children who can't afford them - maybe a few do, but many have changes like illness, redundancy, marital breakdown etc. Life is not as simple as you'd like to think![/p][/quote]There are indeed exceptions BUT... An awful lot of families are having to live in B&B accommodation and an awful lot of single people are living in three bedroom houses. The aim of this is to get families to live in houses that suite their needs or pay a premium for the privilege of living in a larger one. What is unfair about that? Big Bad Wolf
  • Score: -3

4:05pm Thu 6 Mar 14

pbrowne2009@live.co.uk says...

And then you get people on low income who work full time and live in PRIVATE accommodation where all the same rules apply except the rent is TWICE as much. I think the council need to have stricter rules and scrap the home swap scheme unless it fits in with the needs of the applicant. I know someone who 'claimed' they had been checked out of their home, got put into a hostel for 3 weeks, got fast tracked into a 1 bedroom council house for herself and daughter. Next thing you know she manages a home swap for a 3 bedroom semi. 2 years later another home swap for an even bigger 3 bed home. 6 years down the line its still her and the daughter. There are people out there that genuinely require 3 bedrooms and suffer because of selfish people like this.
And then you get people on low income who work full time and live in PRIVATE accommodation where all the same rules apply except the rent is TWICE as much. I think the council need to have stricter rules and scrap the home swap scheme unless it fits in with the needs of the applicant. I know someone who 'claimed' they had been checked out of their home, got put into a hostel for 3 weeks, got fast tracked into a 1 bedroom council house for herself and daughter. Next thing you know she manages a home swap for a 3 bedroom semi. 2 years later another home swap for an even bigger 3 bed home. 6 years down the line its still her and the daughter. There are people out there that genuinely require 3 bedrooms and suffer because of selfish people like this. pbrowne2009@live.co.uk
  • Score: 12

4:20pm Thu 6 Mar 14

CaroleBaines says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Blythespirit wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.
You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.
How many of the 800 plus fit into the working category? Again this all goes back to my first basic point I raised yesterday. Live within your means? This means do not have a kid if you can not afford them. Do not move into a large house if you can not afford the rent. Buy a bike instead of a car? If you expect me to feel sorry for these people who get given a subsidised house to live in yet can not manage their money better or indeed get a better job you're mistaken. I shared a room when I was little! My nieces still do out of choice. So why get a bigger house on the state then you actually need? Greed! Because its free! Now everyone has clocked onto it its too little too late. And just so you know was one of them given a final council tax reminder. Not because I couldn’t afford it. Because them kept messing up my bill.

Your argument is people are being hit by a rule that they were aware of for a year prior to it being implemented and yet could not find another council house or swap one? This is why each day on fb they are still being picky about where they want to swap to, the area, garden size, i go back to my point beggars can not be choosers. Or find a better job? if people have no aspirations in life to provide for their children and give them a good life and rely on the state that’s their issue. If I was going to be charged additional money and had time to sort it I would?
See - I would have quit the moment Blythspirit used his/her evident knowledge to show your arguments for the vacuous rantings they were - but instead you treated us to more hilarity. So thanks for that, seriously, I like a laugh.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blythespirit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.[/p][/quote]You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.[/p][/quote]How many of the 800 plus fit into the working category? Again this all goes back to my first basic point I raised yesterday. Live within your means? This means do not have a kid if you can not afford them. Do not move into a large house if you can not afford the rent. Buy a bike instead of a car? If you expect me to feel sorry for these people who get given a subsidised house to live in yet can not manage their money better or indeed get a better job you're mistaken. I shared a room when I was little! My nieces still do out of choice. So why get a bigger house on the state then you actually need? Greed! Because its free! Now everyone has clocked onto it its too little too late. And just so you know was one of them given a final council tax reminder. Not because I couldn’t afford it. Because them kept messing up my bill. Your argument is people are being hit by a rule that they were aware of for a year prior to it being implemented and yet could not find another council house or swap one? This is why each day on fb they are still being picky about where they want to swap to, the area, garden size, i go back to my point beggars can not be choosers. Or find a better job? if people have no aspirations in life to provide for their children and give them a good life and rely on the state that’s their issue. If I was going to be charged additional money and had time to sort it I would?[/p][/quote]See - I would have quit the moment Blythspirit used his/her evident knowledge to show your arguments for the vacuous rantings they were - but instead you treated us to more hilarity. So thanks for that, seriously, I like a laugh. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 2

4:38pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Blythespirit wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.
You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.
How many of the 800 plus fit into the working category? Again this all goes back to my first basic point I raised yesterday. Live within your means? This means do not have a kid if you can not afford them. Do not move into a large house if you can not afford the rent. Buy a bike instead of a car? If you expect me to feel sorry for these people who get given a subsidised house to live in yet can not manage their money better or indeed get a better job you're mistaken. I shared a room when I was little! My nieces still do out of choice. So why get a bigger house on the state then you actually need? Greed! Because its free! Now everyone has clocked onto it its too little too late. And just so you know was one of them given a final council tax reminder. Not because I couldn’t afford it. Because them kept messing up my bill. Your argument is people are being hit by a rule that they were aware of for a year prior to it being implemented and yet could not find another council house or swap one? This is why each day on fb they are still being picky about where they want to swap to, the area, garden size, i go back to my point beggars can not be choosers. Or find a better job? if people have no aspirations in life to provide for their children and give them a good life and rely on the state that’s their issue. If I was going to be charged additional money and had time to sort it I would?
See - I would have quit the moment Blythspirit used his/her evident knowledge to show your arguments for the vacuous rantings they were - but instead you treated us to more hilarity. So thanks for that, seriously, I like a laugh.
Good very constructive again Carole thanks for you're input. I look forward to your uncostructive comments and views or lack of on a daily basis.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blythespirit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.[/p][/quote]You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.[/p][/quote]How many of the 800 plus fit into the working category? Again this all goes back to my first basic point I raised yesterday. Live within your means? This means do not have a kid if you can not afford them. Do not move into a large house if you can not afford the rent. Buy a bike instead of a car? If you expect me to feel sorry for these people who get given a subsidised house to live in yet can not manage their money better or indeed get a better job you're mistaken. I shared a room when I was little! My nieces still do out of choice. So why get a bigger house on the state then you actually need? Greed! Because its free! Now everyone has clocked onto it its too little too late. And just so you know was one of them given a final council tax reminder. Not because I couldn’t afford it. Because them kept messing up my bill. Your argument is people are being hit by a rule that they were aware of for a year prior to it being implemented and yet could not find another council house or swap one? This is why each day on fb they are still being picky about where they want to swap to, the area, garden size, i go back to my point beggars can not be choosers. Or find a better job? if people have no aspirations in life to provide for their children and give them a good life and rely on the state that’s their issue. If I was going to be charged additional money and had time to sort it I would?[/p][/quote]See - I would have quit the moment Blythspirit used his/her evident knowledge to show your arguments for the vacuous rantings they were - but instead you treated us to more hilarity. So thanks for that, seriously, I like a laugh.[/p][/quote]Good very constructive again Carole thanks for you're input. I look forward to your uncostructive comments and views or lack of on a daily basis. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -2

7:29pm Thu 6 Mar 14

welf_man says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Daisy75 wrote:
Blythespirit wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.
You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.
Not only that, but much of the housing stock was built to accommodate the larger families at that time, so there are few properties for single people, and these are the very people for whom the housing benefit is at an impractical level for renting. The price gap rental wise between a single bed flat and two bed on the open market is around £50 per month at most- not much but insurmountable if on benefits.
but they get it at a reduced rate? tell me how much rent a single person pays in a 2 bed flat? Funny you should mention this as poorer people or students tend to share a house. have a room each.. this costs around £100-£200 per month (£125 a friend got a single room for)? so what is their excuse? if they move out do they loose some of their benifits?
LOL - average rent for a room in a student house is £70 per week plus bills.

Another thing rarely mentioned is that the majority of one-bedroom Council / Housing Association accommodation is either sheltered, supported or only available to those over a particular age - generally 55 or 60.

As for "getting a better job" - there are currently about 5 million people looking for work or increased hours, against 450,000 vacancies in JobCentres. Only today it was revealed that hundreds of thousands of "jobs" advertised on the new JobMatch website were non-existent, posted to scam people out of fees and charges.

However much you try to avoid the reality, times are hard and people are struggling.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Daisy75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blythespirit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.[/p][/quote]You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.[/p][/quote]Not only that, but much of the housing stock was built to accommodate the larger families at that time, so there are few properties for single people, and these are the very people for whom the housing benefit is at an impractical level for renting. The price gap rental wise between a single bed flat and two bed on the open market is around £50 per month at most- not much but insurmountable if on benefits.[/p][/quote]but they get it at a reduced rate? tell me how much rent a single person pays in a 2 bed flat? Funny you should mention this as poorer people or students tend to share a house. have a room each.. this costs around £100-£200 per month (£125 a friend got a single room for)? so what is their excuse? if they move out do they loose some of their benifits?[/p][/quote]LOL - average rent for a room in a student house is £70 per week plus bills. Another thing rarely mentioned is that the majority of one-bedroom Council / Housing Association accommodation is either sheltered, supported or only available to those over a particular age - generally 55 or 60. As for "getting a better job" - there are currently about 5 million people looking for work or increased hours, against 450,000 vacancies in JobCentres. Only today it was revealed that hundreds of thousands of "jobs" advertised on the new JobMatch website were non-existent, posted to scam people out of fees and charges. However much you try to avoid the reality, times are hard and people are struggling. welf_man
  • Score: 8

7:53pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

welf_man wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Daisy75 wrote:
Blythespirit wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.
You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.
Not only that, but much of the housing stock was built to accommodate the larger families at that time, so there are few properties for single people, and these are the very people for whom the housing benefit is at an impractical level for renting. The price gap rental wise between a single bed flat and two bed on the open market is around £50 per month at most- not much but insurmountable if on benefits.
but they get it at a reduced rate? tell me how much rent a single person pays in a 2 bed flat? Funny you should mention this as poorer people or students tend to share a house. have a room each.. this costs around £100-£200 per month (£125 a friend got a single room for)? so what is their excuse? if they move out do they loose some of their benifits?
LOL - average rent for a room in a student house is £70 per week plus bills. Another thing rarely mentioned is that the majority of one-bedroom Council / Housing Association accommodation is either sheltered, supported or only available to those over a particular age - generally 55 or 60. As for "getting a better job" - there are currently about 5 million people looking for work or increased hours, against 450,000 vacancies in JobCentres. Only today it was revealed that hundreds of thousands of "jobs" advertised on the new JobMatch website were non-existent, posted to scam people out of fees and charges. However much you try to avoid the reality, times are hard and people are struggling.
Hahaha I never said student accommodation? I said a house share. So go in have a look and see if you can't get one for £150 per month? I must have imagined a whole block of flats next to the foss that were one bedroom built for the housing association? You do realise that proper companies don't advertise through the job agency? And that they are national statistics? When I was out of work I had to commute to leeds. York has a good employment record and it says something for people who are beaten to Jobs by the much criticised Europeans. All of the above however is irrelevant and my point is live within your means. As stories state above it is abused and now these people are paying the price. I have such a strong view on it as I see it day in and day out. Workers struggle to make ends meet too you know. Difference is we own our house and have to sort it all put without council help. Think of it that way.
[quote][p][bold]welf_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Daisy75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blythespirit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: Just go on the Facebook site and you can all swap your 5 bedroom houses with gardens for a nice 2 bed city centre apartment. Maybe teach them all for being greedy In getting properties they didn't need in the first place. Most of all I suggest the council run a budget your money course for them. Deduct council tax first prior to going to Primark and buying Lambrini and all the other needless stuff. They do it because the know the council is a soft touch and will either bail them out or give them more time. After all not as if they will get evicted is it.[/p][/quote]You are hopelessly misinformed. I work within the system and it stinks. Most of the people struggling with the new housing benefit rules are working people, on low incomes, who were previously entitled to their extra room because they had children of different sexes. Under the new rules, if the children are under ten, they are seen to have an extra room because the government now says the children should be sharing. Some of the 'spare rooms' in question are little bigger than a cupboard and in a lot of cases the bedroom which the children are expected to share is only a single. These people are working hard for a pittance and struggling to pay for the basics - food and fuel - without this ridiculous extra charge on top.[/p][/quote]Not only that, but much of the housing stock was built to accommodate the larger families at that time, so there are few properties for single people, and these are the very people for whom the housing benefit is at an impractical level for renting. The price gap rental wise between a single bed flat and two bed on the open market is around £50 per month at most- not much but insurmountable if on benefits.[/p][/quote]but they get it at a reduced rate? tell me how much rent a single person pays in a 2 bed flat? Funny you should mention this as poorer people or students tend to share a house. have a room each.. this costs around £100-£200 per month (£125 a friend got a single room for)? so what is their excuse? if they move out do they loose some of their benifits?[/p][/quote]LOL - average rent for a room in a student house is £70 per week plus bills. Another thing rarely mentioned is that the majority of one-bedroom Council / Housing Association accommodation is either sheltered, supported or only available to those over a particular age - generally 55 or 60. As for "getting a better job" - there are currently about 5 million people looking for work or increased hours, against 450,000 vacancies in JobCentres. Only today it was revealed that hundreds of thousands of "jobs" advertised on the new JobMatch website were non-existent, posted to scam people out of fees and charges. However much you try to avoid the reality, times are hard and people are struggling.[/p][/quote]Hahaha I never said student accommodation? I said a house share. So go in have a look and see if you can't get one for £150 per month? I must have imagined a whole block of flats next to the foss that were one bedroom built for the housing association? You do realise that proper companies don't advertise through the job agency? And that they are national statistics? When I was out of work I had to commute to leeds. York has a good employment record and it says something for people who are beaten to Jobs by the much criticised Europeans. All of the above however is irrelevant and my point is live within your means. As stories state above it is abused and now these people are paying the price. I have such a strong view on it as I see it day in and day out. Workers struggle to make ends meet too you know. Difference is we own our house and have to sort it all put without council help. Think of it that way. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -5

8:26pm Thu 6 Mar 14

munkey_mac says...

So if the Government passed on a 10% reduction in Council Tax Support funding to councils, why on earth did City of York Council pass on a 30% reduction to its claimants? Its partly a mess of their own making.
So if the Government passed on a 10% reduction in Council Tax Support funding to councils, why on earth did City of York Council pass on a 30% reduction to its claimants? Its partly a mess of their own making. munkey_mac
  • Score: 1

4:01am Fri 7 Mar 14

York1900 says...

The government knew when they made these changes to benefits that there were not enough smaller housing stock and it would be a back door tax that councils would take the blame for in doing the governments bidding

The government as shouted it at every opportunity that there was help for councils if they did not raise council tax by more than 1% and these measures would force the so called scroungers in to work but the many of the people caught by these changes are people in work on minimum wage

If had YCC as charged people on benefit less in council tax the difference would of had to be picked up by those who pay full council tax

But this government as done everything it can to tax people on low wages and benefits by the back door while telling everyone that they are helping
people on low wages and benefits

The government as cut councils grant put more services on to councils without extra money so most councils are cutting services were ever they can and more and more services are been provided with a extra charge at the point of use and this is why councils are coming up with more and more ways to charge people for services by putting work out to the private sector and allowing them to charge people the difference between what the council pays them and the cost of the service

You get a tax cut in your wage packet but the government as made sure that councils will need to take that tax cut plus off you with the changes they have made to council funding


\
The government knew when they made these changes to benefits that there were not enough smaller housing stock and it would be a back door tax that councils would take the blame for in doing the governments bidding The government as shouted it at every opportunity that there was help for councils if they did not raise council tax by more than 1% and these measures would force the so called scroungers in to work but the many of the people caught by these changes are people in work on minimum wage If had YCC as charged people on benefit less in council tax the difference would of had to be picked up by those who pay full council tax But this government as done everything it can to tax people on low wages and benefits by the back door while telling everyone that they are helping people on low wages and benefits The government as cut councils grant put more services on to councils without extra money so most councils are cutting services were ever they can and more and more services are been provided with a extra charge at the point of use and this is why councils are coming up with more and more ways to charge people for services by putting work out to the private sector and allowing them to charge people the difference between what the council pays them and the cost of the service You get a tax cut in your wage packet but the government as made sure that councils will need to take that tax cut plus off you with the changes they have made to council funding \ York1900
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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