It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bedroom Tax Suicide Victim in Vain: Granny was exempt from housing loss

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Most people live within their means, but they keep shifting the goalposts, good job a plasterer,
A skill I could never master, bricklaying, slating ok but I used to make such a mess plastering.




posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   

pavmas
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Do people buying their house and unemployed get penalised for having extra bedroom.


Well, for the first 13 weeks of unemployment, a mortgage payer will receive nothing at all towards housing costs, then the DWP will only pay interest on the loan based on a standardised average interest rate. This means if a lender is charging a higher rate then the benefit will not even cover the interest on the loan.

It is interesting to note that the majority of new JSA claims by mortgage payers cease before the end of the 13 week period as they take in lodgers or grab any crap agency work to try and prevent losing their home to the bank.

As the OP is referring solely to rental benefits though, again, do you agree that the 'extra bedroom benefits' you support should also apply to tenants in the private sector, regardless of how many extra rooms they have?



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Mate I have to be honest with you' I am in private rented property and have been since 1990 and i have not heard of this extra for a bedroom.

I only heard about it since the tories brought it in this last year, perhaps because I have no extra bedroom, but I was not aware of this, and it is unfair to punish someone because they have an extra room

i think the uproar regarding council tennants is because all the were offered was 3 bedroom and if they rejected they went to the bottom of the list, so you had single people getting 3 bedroom house when they only wanted a 1 bed flat, the properties don't exist to move them, so live where you are and pay or give up and live on the street.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by pavmas
 
Haha, understand totally, should have seen the state of me when I plastered my first ceiling!
Also a strange one when I'm working on houses that I will never be able to afford to buy myself



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

destination now
It is NOT a TAX...It is a reduction in housing benefit for those in council owned property when they have extra bedrooms. The average cost is about £4 per week reduction in housing benefit. This rule has been in place in the private rented sector for as long as I can remember. Even with the two bedroom allowance I have, due to the shortage of council property, I have to rent in the private sector, where my rent is £104 per week, the allowance is £98.00, therefore, I have to pay £6 per week extra. The same flat, when it was owned by the council costs £60 per week and I would have no top up to pay.

Where were all the bleeding heart liberals when that rule was made for the private sector? As soon as my daughter turned 18, I had to provide evidence that she was still in full time education or my allowance would have been cut to a one bed property, as it is, it will be cut when she turns 20, so we will have to cough up an extra £20 a week, because private rents are so much higher than council rents. But I can assure you, that the difference between a 5 apartment council property and a 2 apartment one is no more than £12 a week.

If she was concerned about her rent, why did she not speak to her family? Although times are tough, I am quite sure they could have helped her with a couple of pounds each per week. Why did she not contact the housing association? Because if she had she would have discovered that the difference in rents was nowhere near £20 per week and of course, she was exempt anyway and even if she wasn't she could have applied for the discretionary payment...one phonecall would have been all it took!

In fact, one of the biggest problems with this new legislation is the scaremongering that goes with it. No one said a thing about the legislation for private rented property, and there wasn't a flurry of Daily Mail articles talking about suicides among private sector tenants, who in fact have always had to "top up" their rent. So perhaps think about others who are not lucky enough to have the cheap rents in the public sector before ranting on about someone losing a couple of quid a week might be more useful.

Also, suicide is not something that occurs because of one factor, there were probably a number of reasons this woman took her own life, and the fact that she obviously couldn't speak to her own family is clearly one of them.
Tony Blair brought in a new scheme,social rents were to rise 80 percent private rents. There is no cheap public housing any more. Now all the foreigners get buy to let mortages,ship their familes over,charge maximum rents then do it again in other ex council house's.
Its a myth that there is cheap social housing anymore. We could fix the economy in one swoop, rent cap,housing benefit cap. The poor would have more money and the taxpayer would be around 40billion a year better off, simples



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Whether you are buying your house or renting,

if you are unemployed through no fault of you own and you get a certain amount in benefit.

You cant just bring in new rules to punish people, people cant help it is they live in a 2 bedroom house and their child has grown and moved.

If their was a system in place, where you were left with an extra room and you went to your landlord or council to get a move and a grant was available for moving expenses then fair enough.

For people buying their home there should be a system in place that they all pay £2 or £3 on top of their monthly payment NON PROFIT MAKING, to cover their monthly payments and interest.

Or lets look at stamp duty which was only meant to be tempoary , why not put that in a pot and any householder unemployed or disabled get their payment made through this.

Whether rented or buying, I will never agree to anyone losing their home for circumstances beyond their control.

It has to be said though that things will get worse, my son has a room in his house for me just in case its needed and I know him and his wife are buying a house soon and they will make sure its big enough for my wife and I.

You just never know what may be round the corner so its better to be ready,.

The bottom line is I don't believe in kicking someone when thy are down.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by pavmas
 


There are set rates for LHA/Housing benefit in a scale based on the number of bedrooms.
In my area here on the SW coast it is £100 per week for a one bed privately rented home. If a single person lives in a 2 bed place then they will only get LHA at the 1 bed rate.
Myself for example, I have a teenage son and I have a 2 bed home because he is with me half the week when not with his mother. Because she gets the child benefit I am not treated as a parent with care or eligible for a 2 bed housing benefit payment if I were to be out of work, I would receive £100 per week but my rent is £130 per week.
The LHA/Housing benefit rate for a 2 bed home in my area is £130 per week, but I would only get £100 because 'I do not need' the extra bedroom.

Yes, it is unfortunate, but it is why I am passionate about any campaign for 'extra bedroom benefits' to cover the private sector as well. It seems rather unjust when some people only seem to give a toss about those in social/council housing.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Would you agree, that if a man cannot afford the thing he makes with his own hands then that is slavery.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   

grainofsand
Regarding the OP though, should a single guy who privately rents a 5 bedroomed house get the LHA rate for 5 bedrooms if he loses his job, or is it just council tenants you feel deserve spare rooms funded by the state?


He will only get LHA for a five bedroom property if he has a housing need for 5 bedrooms. If he has a housing need for 1 bedroom and the rent on the 5 bedroom property is the same or less than the LHA for a one bed property, his rent will be paid.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

pavmas
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Would you agree, that if a man cannot afford the thing he makes with his own hands then that is slavery.



My thoughts are that a man who cannot withdraw his labour is a slave.
I can make beautiful things with my trowels and a £5 bag of plaster. I can afford the things I make, just not perhaps the places I sometimes make it.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

grainofsand

Soloprotocol

grainofsand
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 


Then we agree.
If this campaign to bring back 'extra bedroom benefits' to tenants is to be equitable then it has to provide the same benefit to privately rented tenants. Just flying the flag for those who do not have the security of social housing. Curious though how nobody seemed to give a toss about private tenants for however long it is that they have not been paid housing benefit for spare bedrooms.


Why would anyone not agree....this whole debacle is an injustice on humanity.
UK PLC has plenty money...TPTB just choose to keep it for their rich friends.
WAR!!! Yip, UK PLC can fund that and we wont even bat an eyelid.


I share similar sentiments about the funding of wars but that is a different fiscal issue for debate.
Regarding the OP though, should a single guy who privately rents a 5 bedroomed house get the LHA rate for 5 bedrooms if he loses his job, or is it just council tenants you feel deserve spare rooms funded by the state?
I'm not asking you how many people are actually likely to be in that position, I'm asking do you think that is the correct change to make for housing benefit legislation, while remembering that morally rules should apply equally for social/council and private tenants.
Remember, if you are providing this 'extra bedroom benefit' to council tenants then morally it must be an equal status for private tenants.

well lets talk about equality...how many spare bedrooms in Buckingham Palace...Tax payer funded Buckingham Palace.
last count around 128.. how much does Queeny have to pay for each unoccupied room..???



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

teapot

grainofsand
Regarding the OP though, should a single guy who privately rents a 5 bedroomed house get the LHA rate for 5 bedrooms if he loses his job, or is it just council tenants you feel deserve spare rooms funded by the state?


He will only get LHA for a five bedroom property if he has a housing need for 5 bedrooms. If he has a housing need for 1 bedroom and the rent on the 5 bedroom property is the same or less than the LHA for a one bed property, his rent will be paid.


Did you miss the part where pretty much every private landlord in the country set their rents at or above the LHA rates when they were introduced???
Find me a 2 bed place anywhere in the country (in the private sector) with rent charged at or below the local 1 bed LHA rate. I will be impressed if you can do that.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Soloprotocol

grainofsand

Soloprotocol

grainofsand
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 


Then we agree.
If this campaign to bring back 'extra bedroom benefits' to tenants is to be equitable then it has to provide the same benefit to privately rented tenants. Just flying the flag for those who do not have the security of social housing. Curious though how nobody seemed to give a toss about private tenants for however long it is that they have not been paid housing benefit for spare bedrooms.


Why would anyone not agree....this whole debacle is an injustice on humanity.
UK PLC has plenty money...TPTB just choose to keep it for their rich friends.
WAR!!! Yip, UK PLC can fund that and we wont even bat an eyelid.


I share similar sentiments about the funding of wars but that is a different fiscal issue for debate.
Regarding the OP though, should a single guy who privately rents a 5 bedroomed house get the LHA rate for 5 bedrooms if he loses his job, or is it just council tenants you feel deserve spare rooms funded by the state?
I'm not asking you how many people are actually likely to be in that position, I'm asking do you think that is the correct change to make for housing benefit legislation, while remembering that morally rules should apply equally for social/council and private tenants.
Remember, if you are providing this 'extra bedroom benefit' to council tenants then morally it must be an equal status for private tenants.

well lets talk about equality...how many spare bedrooms in Buckingham Palace...Tax payer funded Buckingham Palace.
last count around 128.. how much does Queeny have to pay for each unoccupied room..???


I agree completely and I'm absolutely against any form of hereditary monarchy, but you have clearly ignored my question with this side-track issue?



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Depends what local authority area you live in. Some have local landlord forums offering incentives to local private sector landlords to let to tenants that are in receipt of housing benefit/LHA. There are landlords out there that would rather have a tenant looking for a home than use only short term lets. Whilst the short term let may appear more lucrative on paper, in practice, someone that stays longer term will take better care of the property and the rental income remains steady whereas with shorter lets, the landlord must factor in income loss during void periods.

But yeah, this type of landlord is rarer than the bog standard money grabber that thinks a house is just bricks and mortar, shareholder's dividends and a pension pot.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 


So, do you agree then that in reality for most private tenants, they have for many years, and continue today, to have their LHA/Housing/rent benefit determined by how many bedrooms the local authority deems part of their housing need?

Regardless of the finer details of the administration of it, the principle is the same. Benefits will only cover bedrooms deemed to be a 'need' for the tenants. My original statement that this equalises the benefit rules for private and social/council tenants still stands. Unless of course you raise some specific issue where you feel I may be incorrect?

I understand what you are saying that if someone finds a 2/3 bed place for the price of a 1 bed then they will still get the 1 bed rate, but to be frank that is kind of irrelevant when such cheap places do not really exist in the private sector, as you probably already know.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Not me you are only in private because you cant get a local authority house, its strange that the difference in council house rents and private is vast,

So whats the answer, they want to move council rents up on par with private rents.

Why not move private rents down and cap them so they are similar.

Its the same with benefits, benefits are nearly the same as min wage (so they say)

The answer is to reduce benefits not raise wages despite the min wage not being a living wage and people need benefits to top it up,

Look at the properties people are living in they are not castles, they are basic and they are charging through the nose for them.

Reducing housing benefit and this £5 tax can only have one result my evictions and a rise in homeless.

As a society this is dangerous.

Let m take you back 20 years ago till now, single mothers have been demonized in the press, called sluts, loose you name it, these kids see how their mothers were treated and remember.

What we have is kids that grew up and now they have no respect for society, they will rob you your wife they don't care and why should they, they know they are thought as scum but they think society is scum.

Now how many parents are at their wits end because of benefit cuts and this £5 charge, and their kids going to bed hungry, what will they kids think of this so called society when they are older.

These kids have no where to turn they are shutting down youth clubs the only place kids can go to escape and play indoor football or table tennis, where is this London 2012 legacy.

I want a country that is safe for my grandkids but the last 2 governments have created a divided society.

I dont want the rich to pay everything but I want it to be fairer, not where the poor are constantly blamed for the state of the country,

Lets be sure of one thing, the poor have never ran the country so they cant be blamed if its in a mess,

The rich from Cambridge and Eton are to blame, they blew the oil money instead of investing it in education, they don't want the poor to have the same chances in life that their kids do.

The last time the tories were in they were drinking champers after the budget and celebrating their windfall by spending £50,000 on their daughters coming out party.
When outside London and the south East people were living in poverty with 3m unemployed.

They sold the gas, electric, british airways, BT and no one outside london or the south east could afford shares,

They shut down industry then sold off the countries asset to the rich, they did the same with the railways before they got kicked out, sold it for next to nothing,

Now the p.o for half price and put a min purchase price of £750

Their hate of the poor is evident

We have a gap so wide now and more are getting poorer by the day. 90% to 10% rich

You dont have to be a genius to see whats coming.

I always said that the benefit was a safety system not for the poor but the rich, as long as the poor had enough to eat the status quo could remain.

Now they are removing benefits and you have people killing themselves, how long before they stop killing themselves at look at who did this to them and go after them/

lets face it if you are prepared to kill yourself then all hope is lost, a person who has lost all hope is dangerous because when hope goes so doe's fear, 1000 in this position is even more dangerous, 100.000 and your way of life is in danger.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


It not side tracking MP have second home, thats 2 homes (1-2) where they have a choice, now do they have to pay for extra bedrooms in the second home paid for by the taxpayer or not.

They are the ones thats say its fair to charge for extra bedroom not used paid for by the taxpayer



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Well Im a brickie and say I build a house and sell it for a £1000, I cant go back and buy that house

Because after tax an Insurance the £1000 is taxed and NI paid its now £700 I am left with

So I need to borrow the £300 to get back where I started, but the bank want £500 back for the loan

now I buy the house that I build for £1000 and is for sale for £1000

So I get my house and Im £500 in debt

The taxman made money sitting at his desk the banker made money sitting at his desk, I did the work and Im £500 in debt and if I dont pay that they will take my house and leave me with nothing.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

pavmas
reply to post by grainofsand
 


you are only in private because you cant get a local authority house


I've never applied for the social housing waiting list, the main reason being that I don't want to live in a street where most people are out of work, and in my area that basically sums up the local social housing estates.
Yes I pay through the nose to pay the landlords mortgage, but there are no feral kids bricking my car in the night, or dumped fridges and sofas on the pavement outside.

Such scenes of course are not representative of everyone in social housing but if I can avoid such lifestyles by renting privately in a nicer place away from Jeremy Kyle types then I will pay the premium.
That said, again, if anyone is campaigning for social/council house tenants to have benefits pay them to have unused bedrooms then the same must apply in the private sector. If the rules are equal then I don't really care either way. I've understood for many years that if I'm out of work then benefits will only pay for 1 bedroom. I've always thought it unjust that social/council tenants could have unused bedrooms while the private sector tenants could not. It was unjust, and now it's equal.
If we want to make a case for all out of work tenants to have benefits pay for unused bedrooms that is a different conversation, but just crying for the social tenants at the moment is ignoring the many others in private lets, and unjust.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pavmas
 


You know as well as I do how cheap it actually is to build a house compared to the sale value.
If building plot/land planning laws weren't so strict it would be even cheaper by tens of thousands.
That house you build and sell must surely include those costs and the calculated profit you would have estimated before starting the project. You may not be able to afford to buy the house with the profit of the sale, but the sale of the house covered all the costs, including your time



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join