Growing unease over bedroom tax
THE basic principle of any rule is that it should be fair. But there is growing uneasiness across Plymouth that the Government's under-occupancy rules, dubbed the bedroom tax, are unfairly penalising poor families and the disabled.
It is a stark fact that we have to make the best use of our country's limited housing stock. There are thousands of people in need stuck on waiting lists while some people are living in houses far too big for them.
But the arrival of the bedroom tax appears to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut – and the splinters are already being felt.
The concerns of social campaigners about the unfairness of the new rules were echoed today in a letter from the leaders of the city's biggest social housing providers.
BUY ONE GET ONE FREE - Medium Cod, Chips & Mushy Peas at...
View details
Simply Purchase a Medium Cod, Chips and Mushy Peas and receive another portion for FREE.
Sustainable Cod, Fresh Cut Chips & Proper Mushy Peas.
Visit Our Website for more information and offers
Terms: Offer valid only with this Voucher, 1 voucher Per Customer. Not for use with any other offer, Not transferable to other menu items
Contact: 01752 421044
Valid until: Thursday, June 27 2013
The letter pulls no punches. It says the people who will be most badly affected are ordinary families on low incomes and people with disabilities.
It underlines the crucial question which the Government appears unable to answer: Where are the smaller properties people are supposed to move into?
The properties are simply not there. So families have no choice but to lose an average of £500 a year in housing benefit simply because they have a 'spare' room.
Those affected include service families, separated parents who need another room to care for vulnerable children and disabled people who have spent years adapting a room to make it easier for them to get around and to look after their health.
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith makes a forceful argument for the stringent application of the spare room subsidy.
He advocates families take in lodgers to fill spare rooms and says local authorities have been given extra cash to help disabled people and their carers.
The social housing providers do not believe this 'hardship fund' will meet the huge demand.
David Cameron is standing firmly by the new rules and says it is 'only fair' that people in social housing should pay the same as those in private rented accommodation.
The Prime Minister may be confident about the fairness of his reforms.
Many in Plymouth, and across the country, will take far more convincing that the reforms are not deeply flawed and give no consideration to the genuine needs of real people.
3 Comments
by Tony248
Sunday, March 10 2013, 9:18AM
“I'm anxious not to be fooled, Enraged-. So can you assist us by clarifying whether the agencies you refer to, that certainly do a fine job in assisting the disabled, will also be topping up the shortfall of rent for disabled people, which these Tory measures will create? The provision of services and help for the disabled does not put money in their pockets, it simply meets their needs. If their housing benefit is cut, then the shortfall will have to come out of their personal benefit, will it not? Or do you know better?”
by Enraged_
Saturday, March 09 2013, 11:08AM
“Box rooms do not count as bedrooms so are exempt from this legislation - that is adequate space for children that stay over on odd nights or for disabled people to store equipment/adaptions etc. It is more than most in the private sector get or even home-owners for that matter who live in small accommodation.
There are agencies who deal specifically with disabled people with significant difficulties such as wheelchair users etc who require carers. They assist them with paying staff (direct payments) and other issues with concern to independent living. If you are deemed vulnerable enough then this is in place. IF however you have a bad back then it is not deemed necessary. All this 'affecting the most vulnerable' is 'spin' from the housing associations as it is creating work and disharmony in thier offices. Dont' be fooled.”
by Tony248
Friday, March 08 2013, 7:19PM
“Whether or not there is a public benefit in this is arguable. However, what reveals it as a typical Tory "hit the poor" measure, is the absence, it would appear, of an appeal procedure which should be in place to grant exemption to those who can show that there is a necessity for an additional bedroom to be available to them on medical or other valid grounds.”