But what is Machel on about when she says that people with a 2 bed house, as long as they are not under occupied will get the full rent, even if it's ÂĢ600 a month? But if a 3 bed house IS underoccupied, and the rent is only ÂĢ400, they won't get all the rent paid? This is what doesn't make sense to me, and this is what I think is not correct. And this is what I was asking her to provide a link for, because it doesn't make sense (to me) and I have never heard of it.
I think the point machel made up there is that if you're in a social housing 3 bedroom house at , say , ÂĢ340 per month with a spare room you won't get full housing benefit, but if you move out of there to a private rented 2 bedroom house at ÂĢ600 per month you'll get that paid .
Anyway, I have to go now, as I have work early again tomorrow. So I will have to love you and leave you. 
Nighty night. xxx
Originally Posted by Slinkiwitch x:
I think the point machel made up there is that if you're in a social housing 3 bedroom house at , say , ÂĢ340 per month with a spare room you won't get full housing benefit, but if you move out of there to a private rented 2 bedroom house at ÂĢ600 per month you'll get that paid .
Ah, I understand now then, but I still think that has to be wrong. Surely there is a fixed limit whether you're in social housing OR private let... (regarding the bedrooms and people in the property and so on...) As far as I know there is anyway. Maybe someone can provide something to prove me wrong... Or maybe some new rules are being brought in to change things. But again, this would make little sense. Surely there would be a certain amount, regardless..??
Originally Posted by Slinkiwitch x:
I think the point machel made up there is that if you're in a social housing 3 bedroom house at , say , ÂĢ340 per month with a spare room you won't get full housing benefit, but if you move out of there to a private rented 2 bedroom house at ÂĢ600 per month you'll get that paid .
great money saving idea to avoid 
Originally Posted by Cupcake:
But what is Machel on about when she says that people with a 2 bed house, as long as they are not under occupied will get the full rent, even if it's ÂĢ600 a month? But if a 3 bed house IS underoccupied, and the rent is only ÂĢ400, they won't get all the rent paid? This is what doesn't make sense to me, and this is what I think is not correct. And this is what I was asking her to provide a link for, because it doesn't make sense (to me) and I have never heard of it.
Hah! Cross posted again! It does seem to be right, under the rules that are there .. if you move out of your public sector underoccupied house into a dearer private sector one with no spare room, under the Local Housing Allowance calculations you'd get full benefit paid for the fully occupied place. Nuts, yep, but that looks like how it could work!
Anyhoo i really must go
OK last post! LOL. If that IS right then, well that is stupid. Again though it's the first I have heard of it.. Night again!
Originally Posted by Cupcake:
Originally Posted by Slinkiwitch x:
I think the point machel made up there is that if you're in a social housing 3 bedroom house at , say , ÂĢ340 per month with a spare room you won't get full housing benefit, but if you move out of there to a private rented 2 bedroom house at ÂĢ600 per month you'll get that paid .
Ah, I understand now then, but I still think that has to be wrong. Surely there is a fixed limit whether you're in social housing OR private let... (regarding the bedrooms and people in the property and so on...) As far as I know there is anyway. Maybe someone can provide something to prove me wrong... Or maybe some new rules are being brought in to change things. But again, this would make little sense. Surely there would be a certain amount, regardless..??
Not according to directgov.. it says
Limits for Local Housing Allowance
A limit will be introduced so that Local Housing Allowance will not exceed:
- ÂĢ250 a week for a one bedroom property (including shared accommodation)
- ÂĢ290 a week for a two bedroom property
- ÂĢ340 a week for a three bedroom property
- ÂĢ400 a week for a four bedroom property
The maximum rate of Housing Benefit will be limited to the rate for a four bedroom property.
Originally Posted by Cupcake:
OK last post! LOL. If that IS right then, well that is stupid. Again though it's the first I have heard of it.. Night again!
It does seem daft .. but that's the government for you! Night! 
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
Originally Posted by Slinkiwitch x:
I think the point machel made up there is that if you're in a social housing 3 bedroom house at , say , ÂĢ340 per month with a spare room you won't get full housing benefit, but if you move out of there to a private rented 2 bedroom house at ÂĢ600 per month you'll get that paid .
great money saving idea to avoid
Yup!
Originally Posted by Slinkiwitch x:
.. if you move out of your public sector underoccupied house into a dearer private sector one with no spare room, under the Local Housing Allowance calculations you'd get full benefit paid for the fully occupied place. Nuts, yep, but that looks like how it could work!
But if you are in a social housing property that is too big for you every social landlord I have ever had contact with provides a 'trade down' scheme.
The scheme gives anyone giving up one or more bedrooms absolute priority to get first refusal on a suitably sized property in an area of their choice where the landlord has properties.
And they frequently pay all your moving costs and give you cash for each bedroom you give up.
So why anyone would need to move from a 3 bed council home to a 2 or 1 bed privately rented dwelling unless they wanted to is baffling
i think you will find that with the new rules regarding housing benefits, that people in the private sector now will have a cap on the amount they can claim, and it is meant to roughly relate to how much 2 in 5 of properties in the private sector can command in rents.
previously private tenants having to rent in the private sector, had a choice of 3 in 5 properties that were affordable on housing benefit now its 2 in 5.
doesnt sound much of a change does it?
but its pushing tenants that were perfectly adequately housed , to look for ever cheaper housing at the bottom end of the market, and we know what that means.
there are caps now in place on what will be paid for by housing benefit and having an extra bedroom, will mean you will go over that cap and have to pay the difference.
so private tenants are just as worse off as council ones.
Yep, Veggie .. was trying to illustrate my understanding of machel's point (on rent levels) to Cupcake,rather than suggest anyone would move from public to private sector housing I did it in a bit of a clumsy way though, should've made it clearer ,sorry!
Originally Posted by jacksonb:
i think you will find that with the new rules regarding housing benefits, that people in the private sector now will have a cap on the amount they can claim, and it is meant to roughly relate to how much 2 in 5 of properties in the private sector can command in rents.
previously private tenants having to rent in the private sector, had a choice of 3 in 5 properties that were affordable on housing benefit now its 2 in 5.
doesnt sound much of a change does it?
but its pushing tenants that were perfectly adequately housed , to look for ever cheaper housing at the bottom end of the market, and we know what that means.
there are caps now in place on what will be paid for by housing benefit and having an extra bedroom, will mean you will go over that cap and have to pay the difference.
so private tenants are just as worse off as council ones.
Yeh, had a look at the Local Housing Allowance rate for the area I live in, it'd be tough going to find a private rental round here within the weekly rate set.
not able to post link to NHF so google National Housing Federation - february newsletter "news" that will give some info and www.cih.org/housingbenefit, for more info.
The other info i have/can provide is from my own RP, who have/are studying reports/bills and applying them.
An overall cap on the amount of benefit a non working household can receive will be introduced in April 2013 The maximum payable to a household will be ÂĢ506 per week, if the nature of the household means that they ordinarily would be entitled to more than this, the difference will be taken off their housing benefit payment. The cap for single people will be ÂĢ350
From April 2013 households of working age will only be eligible for benefit to pay for a property which matches their family size.
children under 16 of the same gender are expected to share
children under 10 expected to share regardless of gender
there are no exceptions to the size criteria, e.g. families with disabled children/disabled people living in adapted or specially designed properties.
That link didn't work machel .. found this on the site though
thanks slink, there is too much focus on "scroungers" genuine people are going to be hurt, as i have said previously my landlord is very concerned, this is a rural area with limited housing options and long waiting lists, some families may become trapped in "over occuping homes"
If anyone is interested in housing policy, there are some good sites with good debates.
Inside Housing has one running on this subject - very interesting and thought provoking
veggie not every social landlord has a trade down contract, i know of 1 rsl that used to offer incentives but they stopped a few years ago, my own doesn't either. in some areas the cbl exists (choice based lettings) but priority isn't given to under occupancy and in some cases there may well be a local connection required.
the govt. was supposed to introduce a national homeswapper register but they haven't as yet
It's a nightmare Machel. I have long advocated a cohesive uniform allocations policy right across all RSLs and a central register of tenants to stop a lot of the abuses that go on everywhere.
My landlord has recently moved from cbl to direct allocations again - for reasons that are extremely divisive and nonsensical but still trade downs get priority esp for the more desirable properties ie houses and bungalows or flats in very sought after areas, and they still get all the financial incentives.
Even though I worked as a housing officer and have worked in private leasehold management and know my way around the system I still cannot get rehoused despite the fact that I have had solicitors, MPs, CAB, local councillors, police, social workers and hospital consultant input to my housing provider. My health problems are directly attributable to my housing situation but still I live here.
I do have a lot of sympathy for people affected by housing issues because I know how traumatic it is . Sorry if it came across as unsympathetic.
I would just say though that if anyone is in a property that is too big for them then it really is relatively easy to exchange with someone who needs a bigger place. Of course there is the expense of that but I have found (and turned many a blind eye to) that the people who want the bigger place will frequently pay removal costs etc
it can be a good bill if somethings were taken into account, like disabled/adaptions/1 spare room/joint custody and pensioners were included
i am quite involved as a tenant and appreciate the problems that many rsl's will encounter, my own is joining homeswapper to help facilitate exchanges and they are preparing now for the fall out, another problem will be when hb is paid to the tenant rather than direct to the landlord.