Tweet
Coalition proposals to 'replicate' the rules applicable in the private rented sector with the social housing sector. Govt states that it is unfair that private tenants have restrictions on the size of house they can claim Housing benefit for, while social housing tenants do not.
So two wrongs make a right it seems....
Anyone renting in the private sector can only receive HB based on what is assessed as their individual needs. So if you are living alone, you do not get HB based on a 2 bedroom house, for example. The assessed HB is derived from LHA rates, ie cost of all like properties in your geographical area ranging from the cheapest to the most expensive, as provided by various agencies. The HB used to be based on the mid point of this scale, but was cut 2 years ago to 30% of the way up the scale...meaning out of every 10 properties, 3 you could afford and 7 you could not .
The proposals for Social Housing tenants are that if you live alone, you can only have a one bedroom flat/house paid for. So you either move to what is affordable, or if you can afford to pay the difference, then you stay and pay more. The LHA rates are not used for Social housing tenants, as these are private rented properties only..so a %'age is assumed to work out the correct rent for a smaller property. This varies between 14% for a one bedroom downsize to 25% for downsizing by 2 bedrooms.
This legislation comes in on 1st April 2013, and is justified as being 'fair' and will 'mirror' what happens to private tenants.
660,000 people will be affected by this.
It's a cost cutting exercise, and nothing to do with equality or fairness.
However, there is a flaw.
The 'equality' which is the term used to justify this latest piece of of vindictive legislation from the Nasty party, doesn't extend to people of 'non working age' (definition...the retirement age of women). On April 1st this is 61 years and 6 months (approx).
New rules for Social Housing tenants do not apply to anyone of non working age, so if you are over 61.5 years old, you do not have to move, you do not have to pay more rent...you are immune.
Unlike in the Private rented sector, where regardless of your age, you are assessed on how many bedrooms you need..so you either move to a smaller house/flat (if you can find one) or pay the difference.
So it's not 'equality' or a 'replication'...The Coalition were afraid to apply it to pensioners but hope that no one will notice the discrepancy with Pensioners in the private rented sector.
Just another ramshackled piece of legislation, badly thought out, badly put together and hopefully will be reformed/abolished when the nasty Party are shown the door in 2015...(which is more likely now their plan to fiddle the electorate boundaries has come a cropper)
So two wrongs make a right it seems....
Anyone renting in the private sector can only receive HB based on what is assessed as their individual needs. So if you are living alone, you do not get HB based on a 2 bedroom house, for example. The assessed HB is derived from LHA rates, ie cost of all like properties in your geographical area ranging from the cheapest to the most expensive, as provided by various agencies. The HB used to be based on the mid point of this scale, but was cut 2 years ago to 30% of the way up the scale...meaning out of every 10 properties, 3 you could afford and 7 you could not .
The proposals for Social Housing tenants are that if you live alone, you can only have a one bedroom flat/house paid for. So you either move to what is affordable, or if you can afford to pay the difference, then you stay and pay more. The LHA rates are not used for Social housing tenants, as these are private rented properties only..so a %'age is assumed to work out the correct rent for a smaller property. This varies between 14% for a one bedroom downsize to 25% for downsizing by 2 bedrooms.
This legislation comes in on 1st April 2013, and is justified as being 'fair' and will 'mirror' what happens to private tenants.
660,000 people will be affected by this.
It's a cost cutting exercise, and nothing to do with equality or fairness.
However, there is a flaw.
The 'equality' which is the term used to justify this latest piece of of vindictive legislation from the Nasty party, doesn't extend to people of 'non working age' (definition...the retirement age of women). On April 1st this is 61 years and 6 months (approx).
New rules for Social Housing tenants do not apply to anyone of non working age, so if you are over 61.5 years old, you do not have to move, you do not have to pay more rent...you are immune.
Unlike in the Private rented sector, where regardless of your age, you are assessed on how many bedrooms you need..so you either move to a smaller house/flat (if you can find one) or pay the difference.
So it's not 'equality' or a 'replication'...The Coalition were afraid to apply it to pensioners but hope that no one will notice the discrepancy with Pensioners in the private rented sector.
Just another ramshackled piece of legislation, badly thought out, badly put together and hopefully will be reformed/abolished when the nasty Party are shown the door in 2015...(which is more likely now their plan to fiddle the electorate boundaries has come a cropper)
well not at least for a year anyway, everyone who does Payroll have had to learn a new system to incorporate universal credits so its gonna be a hard one to remove.
Comment