Discussion
I'm for the idea in principle but there is a fundamental flaw.
I have it on good authority that there's a sever lack of availability of smaller council housing at the moment so those that might want to downsize just plain can't.
Would be ideal if there was a plan to build some housing to fill the gap.
I have it on good authority that there's a sever lack of availability of smaller council housing at the moment so those that might want to downsize just plain can't.
Would be ideal if there was a plan to build some housing to fill the gap.
Big Rod said:
I'm for the idea in principle but there is a fundamental flaw.
I have it on good authority that there's a sever lack of availability of smaller council housing at the moment so those that might want to downsize just plain can't.
Would be ideal if there was a plan to build some housing to fill the gap.
Going by comments in this thread it would appear Local Authority's do not approve planning for smaller property's as it's deemed a waste of land (I know this is true of Bungalows). Getting the policy of filling one/two beds sorted will give confidence to the construction company's to get started on lobbying Local Authority's along with HA's. You've got to start somewhere with things like this IMO.I have it on good authority that there's a sever lack of availability of smaller council housing at the moment so those that might want to downsize just plain can't.
Would be ideal if there was a plan to build some housing to fill the gap.
Even if you’re idea was implemented it would take YEARS before we got anywhere near the amount of properties required.
A couple of years ago we were offered a big old house – for free - by a local authority. It had been empty for a while (they had been using as some kind of satellite office for their education dept). The LA wanted to give it us as they couldn’t afford to do anything with it, in return we would spend some money renovating and turning it into seven 1-bed flats. The plan was that the flats would be used to house young, single, local people. Everyone’s a winner.
Except the locals kicked up a stink. We met so much opposition it was unreal. We spent a small fortune on sorts of consultation but they wouldn’t budge from their position so eventually we knocked it on the head. There’s only so many meetings, phone calls, letters, emails etc that you can do.
Two years on, the council still can’t find a use for it, or a buyer, and the property is boarded-up and still empty.
Check out the graphs on this link to see how little house building is going on in both the private and public sector.
http://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/141718/...
A couple of years ago we were offered a big old house – for free - by a local authority. It had been empty for a while (they had been using as some kind of satellite office for their education dept). The LA wanted to give it us as they couldn’t afford to do anything with it, in return we would spend some money renovating and turning it into seven 1-bed flats. The plan was that the flats would be used to house young, single, local people. Everyone’s a winner.
Except the locals kicked up a stink. We met so much opposition it was unreal. We spent a small fortune on sorts of consultation but they wouldn’t budge from their position so eventually we knocked it on the head. There’s only so many meetings, phone calls, letters, emails etc that you can do.
Two years on, the council still can’t find a use for it, or a buyer, and the property is boarded-up and still empty.
Check out the graphs on this link to see how little house building is going on in both the private and public sector.
http://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/141718/...
muffinmenace said:
Going by comments in this thread it would appear Local Authority's do not approve planning for smaller property's as it's deemed a waste of land (I know this is true of Bungalows). Getting the policy of filling one/two beds sorted will give confidence to the construction company's to get started on lobbying Local Authority's along with HA's. You've got to start somewhere with things like this IMO.
I've wondered why there wasn't more development of smaller domiciles. Often thought it would be a good move for entry level properties and/or social housing.rover 623gsi said:
Even if you’re idea was implemented it would take YEARS before we got anywhere near the amount of properties required.
A couple of years ago we were offered a big old house – for free - by a local authority. It had been empty for a while (they had been using as some kind of satellite office for their education dept). The LA wanted to give it us as they couldn’t afford to do anything with it, in return we would spend some money renovating and turning it into seven 1-bed flats. The plan was that the flats would be used to house young, single, local people. Everyone’s a winner.
Except the locals kicked up a stink. We met so much opposition it was unreal. We spent a small fortune on sorts of consultation but they wouldn’t budge from their position so eventually we knocked it on the head. There’s only so many meetings, phone calls, letters, emails etc that you can do.
Two years on, the council still can’t find a use for it, or a buyer, and the property is boarded-up and still empty.
Check out the graphs on this link to see how little house building is going on in both the private and public sector.
http://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/141718/...
So the issues resolve around the Public Sector, this is something that can be fixed. More of a 'can do' attitude is needed; if they're restrained by policy... get rid of the policy. Council Tax income would go up too as you're getting more properties into smaller area, even taking in account the 25% reduction for single occupancy. A couple of years ago we were offered a big old house – for free - by a local authority. It had been empty for a while (they had been using as some kind of satellite office for their education dept). The LA wanted to give it us as they couldn’t afford to do anything with it, in return we would spend some money renovating and turning it into seven 1-bed flats. The plan was that the flats would be used to house young, single, local people. Everyone’s a winner.
Except the locals kicked up a stink. We met so much opposition it was unreal. We spent a small fortune on sorts of consultation but they wouldn’t budge from their position so eventually we knocked it on the head. There’s only so many meetings, phone calls, letters, emails etc that you can do.
Two years on, the council still can’t find a use for it, or a buyer, and the property is boarded-up and still empty.
Check out the graphs on this link to see how little house building is going on in both the private and public sector.
http://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/141718/...
Big Rod said:
I've wondered why there wasn't more development of smaller domiciles. Often thought it would be a good move for entry level properties and/or social housing.
It would, but the effort required as the post above shows makes them uneconomical. Big Rod said:
I'm for the idea in principle but there is a fundamental flaw. I have it on good authority that there's a sever lack of availability of smaller council housing at the moment so those that might want to downsize just plain can't.
The point being that you only need to build cheaper smaller homes - hence the clear saving. muffinmenace said:
rover 623gsi said:
Even if you’re idea was implemented it would take YEARS before we got anywhere near the amount of properties required.
A couple of years ago we were offered a big old house – for free - by a local authority. It had been empty for a while (they had been using as some kind of satellite office for their education dept). The LA wanted to give it us as they couldn’t afford to do anything with it, in return we would spend some money renovating and turning it into seven 1-bed flats. The plan was that the flats would be used to house young, single, local people. Everyone’s a winner.
Except the locals kicked up a stink. We met so much opposition it was unreal. We spent a small fortune on sorts of consultation but they wouldn’t budge from their position so eventually we knocked it on the head. There’s only so many meetings, phone calls, letters, emails etc that you can do.
Two years on, the council still can’t find a use for it, or a buyer, and the property is boarded-up and still empty.
Check out the graphs on this link to see how little house building is going on in both the private and public sector.
http://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/141718/...
So the issues resolve around the Public Sector, this is something that can be fixed. More of a 'can do' attitude is needed; if they're restrained by policy... get rid of the policy. Council Tax income would go up too as you're getting more properties into smaller area, even taking in account the 25% reduction for single occupancy. A couple of years ago we were offered a big old house – for free - by a local authority. It had been empty for a while (they had been using as some kind of satellite office for their education dept). The LA wanted to give it us as they couldn’t afford to do anything with it, in return we would spend some money renovating and turning it into seven 1-bed flats. The plan was that the flats would be used to house young, single, local people. Everyone’s a winner.
Except the locals kicked up a stink. We met so much opposition it was unreal. We spent a small fortune on sorts of consultation but they wouldn’t budge from their position so eventually we knocked it on the head. There’s only so many meetings, phone calls, letters, emails etc that you can do.
Two years on, the council still can’t find a use for it, or a buyer, and the property is boarded-up and still empty.
Check out the graphs on this link to see how little house building is going on in both the private and public sector.
http://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/141718/...
Sweeping away the barriers to building the smaller houses or converting larger ones into flats, then as they're built move people into them would be the sensible way.
The way they propose to do it is to push people out of their houses and somehow magic up enough 1 and 2 bed places to house them.
Idiots.
We currently have a relative who is, essentially, special needs - but has never been formally diagnosed. He therefore does not qual;ify as any sort of "special case".
He has been informed that his rent will now more than double. He lives in what was his family home for over 40 years but the last remaining parent died ten years ago and he now lives alone. He is deemed to have excess rooms.
We are trying desperately to find a suitable house swap but actually finding a household that can actually qualify for his house is actually extremely difficult - despite what the government says.
My hunch is that people will be forced out of some homes and then those homes will remain empty. In this chaps case, the house will need massive remedial work done on it which will cost, in my estimate, £20,000 to £30,000, to make it habitable for a family.
So, it could be months, if not years, after he has been thrown out before it can be used again - depending on if and when the Housing Association get around to spending money on the property.
This policy has all the hallmarks of an expensive and social disaster in the making.
He has been informed that his rent will now more than double. He lives in what was his family home for over 40 years but the last remaining parent died ten years ago and he now lives alone. He is deemed to have excess rooms.
We are trying desperately to find a suitable house swap but actually finding a household that can actually qualify for his house is actually extremely difficult - despite what the government says.
My hunch is that people will be forced out of some homes and then those homes will remain empty. In this chaps case, the house will need massive remedial work done on it which will cost, in my estimate, £20,000 to £30,000, to make it habitable for a family.
So, it could be months, if not years, after he has been thrown out before it can be used again - depending on if and when the Housing Association get around to spending money on the property.
This policy has all the hallmarks of an expensive and social disaster in the making.
RealSquirrels said:
rover 623gsi said:
Yes. It will happen a lot. The housing benefit bill is going up - it will reach £25bn a year by 2015 and the bedroom tax is not going to make any indent into that increase. The reason the HB bill is increasing is simply that rents in both the private and public sector are going up - in particular more and more people are renting privately where rents are much higher than in the public sector (and don't forget only one in eight recipients of HB are unemployed).
the real solution is to build lots of social housing and get people on housing benefit back into council houses. provides an economic stimulus, reduces the HB bill, and drops house prices and rents in the private sector which are currently heading towards unaffordable. social housing is for people who have a housing need that cannot be met on the open market .
given that much of the private rental market activity avoids involvement with HB your argument there falls down.
Eric Mc said:
We currently have a relative who is, essentially, special needs - but has never been formally diagnosed. He therefore does not qual;ify as any sort of "special case".
He has been informed that his rent will now more than double. He lives in what was his family home for over 40 years but the last remaining parent died ten years ago and he now lives alone. He is deemed to have excess rooms.
We are trying desperately to find a suitable house swap but actually finding a household that can actually qualify for his house is actually extremely difficult - despite what the government says.
My hunch is that people will be forced out of some homes and then those homes will remain empty. In this chaps case, the house will need massive remedial work done on it which will cost, in my estimate, £20,000 to £30,000, to make it habitable for a family.
So, it could be months, if not years, after he has been thrown out before it can be used again - depending on if and when the Housing Association get around to spending money on the property.
This policy has all the hallmarks of an expensive and social disaster in the making.
The principle driver for this are the numbers of families with actual housing needs who are currently in unsuitable properties while singles and couples are living in 3 and 4 bedroom homes on the basis that they used to qualify for a house of that size. He has been informed that his rent will now more than double. He lives in what was his family home for over 40 years but the last remaining parent died ten years ago and he now lives alone. He is deemed to have excess rooms.
We are trying desperately to find a suitable house swap but actually finding a household that can actually qualify for his house is actually extremely difficult - despite what the government says.
My hunch is that people will be forced out of some homes and then those homes will remain empty. In this chaps case, the house will need massive remedial work done on it which will cost, in my estimate, £20,000 to £30,000, to make it habitable for a family.
So, it could be months, if not years, after he has been thrown out before it can be used again - depending on if and when the Housing Association get around to spending money on the property.
This policy has all the hallmarks of an expensive and social disaster in the making.
I've skimmed this thread and haven't found mention of the flip side of this 'bedroom tax'...
When I first heard of it, I thought it was a touch harsh and an attempt to get the benefits lot to swap to more appropriate housing, harsh, but maybe fair on paper... but, it is my understanding that should they let the under occupied rooms that they not only are not penalised for the under occupancy, they also get to keep the rental generated without it affecting their benefits.
Not a bad deal and potentially a game changer.
Don't get penalised, get some extra cash as well, which you can keep.
Housing shortage sorted? Maybe.
When I first heard of it, I thought it was a touch harsh and an attempt to get the benefits lot to swap to more appropriate housing, harsh, but maybe fair on paper... but, it is my understanding that should they let the under occupied rooms that they not only are not penalised for the under occupancy, they also get to keep the rental generated without it affecting their benefits.
Not a bad deal and potentially a game changer.
Don't get penalised, get some extra cash as well, which you can keep.
Housing shortage sorted? Maybe.
mph1977 said:
The principle driver for this are the numbers of families with actual housing needs who are currently in unsuitable properties while singles and couples are living in 3 and 4 bedroom homes on the basis that they used to qualify for a house of that size.
That makes sense except THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SMALLER PROPERTIES. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.Besides which, the govt is being very misleading when talking about the number of under occuppied homes and empty rooms. e.g a couple in 3 bed house with two boys over 10 or a boy aged 9 and a girl aged 7 are now deemed to be under occupying and will their HB cut by 14% of their total rent. It's mental and it will do.nothing to reduce waiting lists and will not reduce the overall HB bill as rents keep going up.
rover 623gsi said:
For some social housing tenants taking in a lodger will be an option but there are a number of reasons why it will only be suitable for a relatively small number of houhouseholds.
To be fair, it is an option to everyone who this new legislation affects, whether they like it is another matter.There is a housing shortage, you (Mr/Mrs social housing) can help in one of two ways, either we pay you a little less toward your highly subsidised rent so we can give it to someone else who needs a hand, or you can take in someone that needs a hand and we'll let you keep any money (without reducing your housing benefit) that you make from helping us to alleviate the housing shortage.
These are your options, we need your help.
It's a good idea, but flawed IMO.
The idea is to save money, but I know a guy who is currently in a 3 bed council property that he rented when he was working but is now being paid for by HB. His monthly rent if/when he is working was £400 a month this was the full price not a subsidised one.
He now has to move to a one bed, they have told him he can go to private rented as they can't accommodate him. His new flat would be £475 per month if he was paying.
The idea is to save money, but I know a guy who is currently in a 3 bed council property that he rented when he was working but is now being paid for by HB. His monthly rent if/when he is working was £400 a month this was the full price not a subsidised one.
He now has to move to a one bed, they have told him he can go to private rented as they can't accommodate him. His new flat would be £475 per month if he was paying.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Big Rod said:
I'm for the idea in principle but there is a fundamental flaw. I have it on good authority that there's a sever lack of availability of smaller council housing at the moment so those that might want to downsize just plain can't.
The point being that you only need to build cheaper smaller homes - hence the clear saving. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff