It's grim, machel. It also means that people who use a room solely for medical equipment ( such as dialysis) are penalised. 

( they have committed to an independent review though ) 

hmmm, I think that its sort of fair enough. You are getting a home provided for you, you are not paying for it, and your children have a room. I dont see much wrong with not being given a spare room. 

I think sooner or later they will have to allow for foster children, or those children will end up in care costing them more money.

ahh, yeah I can see that would be a problem, I was purely thinking along the  'room for kids and no spare' route.

saving money is not an excuse either as for example full HB will not be paid to a couple with one child in a 3 bed house with monthly rent of £340 (social housing) but £600+ on a 2 bed house (private sector) will!

think that's the problem, they hadn't looked at all the implications 

yup, it's been half-baked really,

I read somewhere someone raising the question of what happens if someone  has to have a long-term hospital stay, or if a family member ( who had a room ) dies 

i can understand two "spare" rooms, but one? what about parents who have custody at weekends?  the cost implications of keep having to move as your family changes? (and not having more but as their age changes), lack of social stability for children? available housing? and of course the ones exempt - elderly - who probably do have more spare rooms

I tend to think it's a fair enough proposal but needs adjusting after  some more thought on it.

How many families stay on in a 3 bed  council house when all the  kids have left? that deprives others from getting a suitable home.

As for housing benefits, I think it's cheaper for the govt. to pay that than build more social housing, once a house is built  they can't constantly reduce the costs involved like they can with benefits..

There is probably no 'outcry' because this is a sensible thing to do.  People whose kids have grown up and left and have 3 bed houses - paid for by the taxpayer, should be penalised, as they are hogging a home that someone with several children could have.  So giving them benefit for a one or two be home only , makes sense.  Of course, if there ARE accentuating circumstances, like someone needing a spare room because of medical circumstances, then that is a different story.  But with the vast majority of tenants, this is not the case.

Should people with 3 kids stay in a 2-bed flat while a couple in their 50s whose kids have left, stay in a big 3 bed house with FULL rent paid?  This is a classic case of people thinking that the country owes them a living.  It isn't a 'right' to have a 3 or 4 bedroom house paid for, for life, even when your kids leave.  Social housing and benefits is meant to help people through a tough time, and isn't meant to be for life.

That wasn't Nye Bevan's vision or intent when council housing construction was stepped up after the war - it was about comfortable, affordable homes for people as an alternative to being at the mercy of slum landlords , and about community . 

The sale of council houses has created the current situation , with the best ( and usually the biggest)  of the properties being taken out of social housing stock. It's a toughie.. 

Yes it is a toughie Slinki.  And in some ways I don't think it's right to make someone leave the home they have had for 40 years, but on the other hand; it's not fair for someone with kids to be living in a poky 1 or 2 bed flat while a couple occupies a big 3 bed house, and it's certainly not fair for them to get full benefit for it.  

Yes, there was a time when the social housing was made for people to have an affordable rented home, but masses of the stock was sold off - thanks to Thatcher making people feel they were only a worthy human being if they bought their house, and plus, we live in a totally different time and era now...  So I am leaning more towards agreeing with what they are doing.  Moreover, I would imagine that the only ones who are going to be against it, are the ones who are affected by it.

That's another part of Thatcher's legacy unfortunately! 

 I can't help but get all  when I think of all the bank bail-out monies - how much new social housing could have been created with that ? 

I know it's maddening.    Anyhoo, sorry but I need to go now.  Got work in the morn at 7am.  ;(  Take care

Jeez, don't envy you that start on a Saturday! Sleep well Cupcake! x

How can we forget, god knows what legacy this lot will leave us with...I despair every time I switch the news on, or read an article...our caring society went out of the window in the 80's. I was thinking today, what happened to compassion and a fairer society and trying to help those most in need 

Huge changes in attitudes , Dame, and fragmented communities - folk are too busy looking out for themselves to look out for others ( sweeping generalisation there, but there's a definite shift in priorities that I think is directly attributable to Thatcher and the culture of the individual she promoted )  I remember the sense of relief and optimism there was at Mayday the year Labour took back power.. then we got more of the same  

Totally agree Slinki, although I don't like what the Labour party turned into.... it's the only option for me now  I liked Charles Kennedy and if he had still been leader might have voted for him. Saying that, Kennedy said himself a few weeks ago if he had been leader they would never have been in coalition with the tories now.  Clegg and the rest of the Lib Dems can now disappear into obscurity for me 

No matter what we say and disagree with this Gov'T seems intent on pushing things through even though the House of Lords throw them out. What is the point in the House of Lords if the Gov't can do this every time??? Just taxpayers money wasted on all those rich git's in the House of Lords.

This may affect me.I live alone in a housing association house. I have two bedrooms.However the amount of rent I and my mother before me paid over 50 years or so would have paid off any retail etc crap!

it's a pity cupcake didn't read all the comments first before posting, as they would have read that older people (oaps) are exempt from the proposals and therefore won't be "freeing up" houses, and pokey flats with families will increase, also a couple who have lived and worked for most of their lives with children who have now left home might find themselves unemployed  and in receipt of HB they will have to move to a 1 bedroomed home, not the usual  type of "scrounger"  but made to feel so.

its also worth remembering that there are no size limitations - yes it may be only useful as a boxroom but that 7" x 10" is now a bedroom that can have two teenagers in there!

katie if you are a pensioner then you will be fine but i'm afraid that if you're not then you will have to pay some rent or move to 1 bedroomed accomodation

the govt. are being consistant, they are targeting the disabled as well, specially adapted homes are included as are disabled children,  when this went to the house of lords they stated that 1 spare room be allowed but sham threw it out

WARNING Very Long Post

Where to start??

I'm a passionate believer in Social Housing (worked as a Housing Officer in Southwark) and foam at the mouth over the amount of buy to let going on which keeps both private rents and purchase prices of property artifically high.

And don't even start me on Thatcher. I have my tap shoes polished for the day she dies believe me.

If I could run anything in this country it would be housing policy - I can guarantee I would probably cause a revolution or be lynched within a year!!

Re this particular policy. Like all things there are arguments on both sides and, as with every policy, some people will be disadvantaged unfairly. There is no doubt that the sale of Housing stock left us desperately short of affordable rental properties and it is that that is causing this seismic shift in the way social housing is allocated.

But (and I surprise myself here) I actually do agree with the policy and would go farther - a lot farther. I live on a huge sink estate in NW London and see on a daily basis how much wastage and abuse of the system there is - a lot of it from the housing providers themselves.

It is unacceptable that people live in properties that are way too large for them and expect tax payers to pick up the tab. It is immoral even if they are paying the rent themselves because social housing rents are heavily subsidised and this housing should be allocated and used according to need. If you want to live in a place with 2 bedrooms you don't use for whatever reason then move to private accomodation and pay for it yourself.

There are too many families living in cramped places because there is nowhere bigger available.

Anyone remember the UberSocialist Carole from BB8. Such a good socialist but lived in a four bed council house all by herself because she was too selfish to trade down.

If people wont do the right thing then the govt and councils should have sticks to use on them

Sorry if this offends anyone here who may well have extenuating circumstances but I have experienced first hand for way too long how bad housing damages people

I hear ya Veggie... 

Whilst I hate the fact that genuine people that should be left alone are gonna be affected by this..    I am sitting with interest to see if they do something about my ex.

He has been sitting pretty in his very nice 2 bedroomed council flat for years.     He's a lazy git that has no intention to get a job, and currently no incentive to get one.

But I bet you..   somehow he keeps it..    I dunno how the hell he does it, but somehow he always comes out on top, quids in...   

bloody oxygen thieving parasite he is

That's it Ditty in a nutshell. I'm sure that even the people who oppose this policy probably know of 1 person or family that are taking advantage of the system.

Besides, this policy isn't saying their rent won't be paid. It's just saying that HB will pay rent up to the value of the rent you would be paying if you lived in a correctly sized dwelling.

The rest of it you have to find yourself - which is how the system operates at the moment anyway I think to a degree.

If you want to live somewhere that charges more rent than they will allow then you have to find the money yourself.

Yes it has caused hardship for some but it has also sorted out some of the buy to rent chancers who have set rents unrealistically over market value for people who receive HB knowing it would have been paid.

Now they have to drop the rent or have no tenants

unfortunately veggie that's not the case, there are no restrictions on how much private landlords charge, as i stated earlier, full hb will not be paid for a 3 bed £340 house (under oocupancy of 1 bedroom) but will be paid for a two bed £600 house (monthly)

the focus is as always on the "scroungers" whilst i agree that 2 spare rooms is excessive 1 room is not - especially given that some cases not exempt

Where are you getting this from?  So FULL rent will now be paid for a two bed house as long as it isn't under occupied, even if it's 800 quid a month?!  But they won't pay full rent for a three bed house (if it is under occupied by one bedroom?)  even if it's only £400 a month!   This is the first I have heard of this.  That doesn't even make any sense.  Do you have any links to this information?  Because I must admit, I have not heard of this.

I work with a department in the midlands that deals with people on housing benefit, and to the best of my knowledge, this is not the case.  There are various maximum amounts that will be paid for a two, three or four bedroom house.  If you are a couple with one child, you qualify for a TWO BEDROOM HOUSE allowance, which - where I live is approx £107.00 a week.  (around £463.00 a month.)  So if you lived in a 3 bed house that was costing £700 a month (which would probably be private rent at that amount,) housing benefit will pay a MAXIMUM of £463.00.  (Because you are only entitled to a 2 bed...)  And in some areas, you can get a 2 bed property for that - even with private let; (in the midlands and surrounding areas anyway... I can't speak for the rest of the country...)

And if you qualify for a 3 bed house, you can get up to £126.00 a week housing benefit, which is around £550 a month.  So if you have a 4 or 5 bed house, and there is just a couple and 2 kids, you will still only get the housing benefit for the 3 bed.

But the figures you have quoted above make no sense, and I haven't heard of anything like this being brought in.  Where did you get this information?

Here is where I got my figures from by the way...

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Di...DoItOnline/DG_196239

This is from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Mo...w_income/DG_10018928

Changes from April 2013

Housing Benefit will be restricted for some people who are living in a property that is larger than their household size. This will apply to working-age customers renting from a social landlord.

I don't know how this is going to work in small towns  we have very little one bedroomed housing association houses in our town and very little demand for housing... in fact we are filling empty houses up with eastern Europeans. So do those with one bedroom spare that can't afford to pay have to move into another area and I presume immigrants move into there empty homes? I'm not being controversial, but I truly believe this applies to more larger towns and cities and smaller towns and rural areas are going to have so many problems. 

i'll dig out the relevant site tomorrow, as it is buried in some literature from my rp, we will be discussing this in greater detail next week, as they are extremely concerned about this and uc when it hb is paid directly to claimants

Thanks Machel 

We have a house across from us where it is rented out by a private landlord and every year their are around a dozen polish folk moving in for the work just before Xmas at at local card company. Our town has just brought in a Landlord sign up thing where they have to comply with various regs ( if they sign up) It should be made compulsory for them to register with the council- maybe then we would see those that do-up properties just for the money -put in anyone and don't give a shit about the neighbors.

Thanks Slinki.  But this is the same site I put the link to..  And it basically says the same as I said: that you get - for example - a certain amount of HB for a family who requires a 2 bed, and a certain amount for a family who requires a three bed (which will be higher than the two bed allowance,) and so on...  Nothing at all on there about how even if your rent is £600, as long as you're not under occupied the full amount will be paid... And if you ARE under occupied, you won't get the full amount, even if it's only 3 or 4 hundred pounds.  Like I said, this makes no sense.  

As it says on the site we both put the link to; HB will be restricted yes, but you will get what your household is ENTITLED to.. sounds fair to me.  

There is a Local Housing Allowance calculator on directgov-  it says there that allowance claimable in the private sector is capped at £ 400  per week. So, machel's right I think -  a family in, say,  Haringey , rents a four bedroom property, and it's fully occupied under the criteria- it reads like they would be paid £400 per week to pass on to the landlord. Rates vary from area to area dependant on market rents , but  the maximum is £400 per week.

Slinki, if you go back to Machel's original posts on here; the rents she is referring to are monthly and not weekly.  You're referring to weekly allowances.

And yes, the rents will vary from area to area, but you will still get more rent rebate for a 3 bed house than you would for a 2 bed, and more for a 4 bed than you would for a three bed, no matter what area you live in.  And of course, if you live in a 4 bed and there are only 2 adults and one child, then you will only get the 2 bed allowance... If you are under occupied and have spare rooms; even one, (eg; you are a couple with one child in a three bed house,) I don't see why anyone should you get the three bed allowance.

Yep, I know, I was just saying that the government agencies website states maximum weekly amounts , and they go up to £400 per week.

ahh! Didn't see the second bit of your post before I replied!  

Sorry, I added it after LOL.