Under occupation

20/02/2012 10:19 am

In Stevenage there is a shortage of accomodation suitable for elders to move onto. As a result there are a large number of elderly couples and singles living in family homes, and some of these are still council homes.

The effect in Stevenage therefore will be that many under occupiers will still not be able to move to the smaller homes that they may prefer, but will not be effected by the Bedroom Tax. Those who are still tenants though will be faced with the stark choice of paying the rent of eating as the Council can not rehouse them, unless of course they move into themore expensive and less life-preserving private sector shared accomodation that is.

20/02/2012 10:53 am

People will be forced into house shares, and even room shares, as the only alternative to street homelessness or comitting benefit fraud. This is a highly backward step for our society and one that could be avoided if rents were reduced to more realistic levels and housing supply increased so people could actually move into a home more closely fitting their size requirements.

Yes, the 'freed' up housing that results from this will be available to let out at 80%MR to a new family (until their make up changes) but the extra HB to fund this will totally blank out any saving from forcing out the smaller family - especially when that smaller family will either be in more expensive private rented housing or more expensive B&B temporary homeless housing.

It is a sad statement on our nation that this is not only being implemented but with the consent of the nodding classes.

20/02/2012 10:59 am

In Norfolk there simply are not any alternative properties to move into. The Wherry have built many new homes, but these are all full already. Other than pitching a tent or sleeping in the barn I will have to give up my flat and my job and see if I can find a room in the City, and live on benefits instead.

20/02/2012 12:15 pm

As this move does nothing to address the economic deficit, and indeed looks likely to cause a higher demand on taxpayer funding, through higher rents requiring more benefit support and social services having more cases to support, is there any Plan A supported who can explain why this is such a good idea?

20/02/2012 4:19 pm

The tories are punishing  council tenants TWICE OVER for having extra space in their home,firstly by cutting housing benefits by £490 million, and then for exactly the same reason they are cutting council tax benefits by £500 million p.a , meaning these tenants are facing a shortfall of £ 1Billion p.a. , which they will have to find themselves.Previously these people spent many years on a waiting list to become tenants , through their local council assessing their needs and allocating them  a suitable  home.If many years later their family circumstances have changed then its not their fault that their home is a different size.They may not now be able to find an empty /smaller /cheaper home nearby.

20/02/2012 7:52 pm

The “Room without Benefit” is a campaign that has been running through 2011 & 2012 on the Bed Room Tax and research by a large housing association suggests: around a third of tenants will seek to move, although the restricted availability of one bed properties means very limited opportunity those seeking a private rented home would face a rent increase and a similar increase in housing benefit.

Those who stay put will have to cope with reduced income levels – nearly 30% of weekly disposable income for single job-seekers, causing significant hardship for people already coping in a low-income community, residents suggest harsh choices will be made between paying their rent and basic necessities, increased rent arrears and bad debts will lead to higher levels of eviction,

While one government department of Work and Pensions introduces it, its sister department, the Department for Communities and Local Government, is trying to squeeze every drop of financial capacity from landlords so they build more homes to address the housing crisis. Not a great example of joined up Government or strategic thinking.

The Government is proposing to reduce housing benefit for working age tenants who under-occupy their homes. This will catch nearly 700,000 tenants, most of whom have one spare bedroom by the Government’s definition – although in reality this is often used for normal family life such as enabling teenage children to have separate bedrooms, separated fathers to have regular overnight access to their children, and heroic couples to foster.

The effect of this will be entirely predictable. Faced with a reduction in benefit of 14 – 25%, there will be a rush of working age tenants seeking to downsize – albeit reluctantly - even though there is a nationwide shortage of smaller homes.

Inevitably councils and housing associations will prioritise tenants who will otherwise struggle to pay their rent, meaning that elderly under-occupiers who actually want to move will hardly get a look in. Whilst for pensioners housing benefit may be protected, many will be left rattling around in larger family houses which are expensive to heat, and unsuited to their needs as they become infirm.

The overall picture is of some households with a genuine need for extra accommodation having to move to avoid the cuts, with many more staying put, with significant consequences for their own household income, and indirectly, for the income streams of their landlords. At the same time elderly households with a real need to move will be denied the opportunity. This is likely to undermine community sustainability and disrupt important family support networks.

It is the lack of social housing being built by councils in general over the decades has left HA's and private developers to build housing but with the change from a grant based system to a revenue based building system, social housing is now afforable housing will make the matters even worse. The bed room taxing the poor to make up for the lack of more social housing supply.

21/02/2012 10:38 am

Would be keen to get as much research from social landlords on this issue up here today. Riverside Group has just sent detailed research through to me on Twitter which takes a detailed look at the impact of changes on under-occupying tenants in one neighbourhood in Tranmere and Rock Ferry - which has around 2,500 social rented homes.

It has 421 tenants in the area - one in four of whom it has worked out will be affected by housing benefit cuts to under-occupiers of working age. It says nearly nine in ten of these under-occupy by one bedroom.

It says that if Riverside made all of its one bedroom vacancies available exclusively for its downsizing tenants, then the process would take six years. The implication, it states, is that tenants face a move into the private rented sector - at an average rent increase of £2.68 a week (handily housing benefit will cover the increase) - or the majority of tenants will stay put. It says this means they will have to 'cope with significantly reduced income levels - nearly 30 per cent of weekly disposable income in the case of a single person job seeker'.

It adds: 'This will cause significant hardship for households already living in a low income community, with residents suggesting that harsh choices will have to be made between basic necessities and paying the rent'.

For the full report see: http://bit.ly/ysEeiw

The full report is well worth a read - although the information in it is far from comforting. Again, would be good to get as much detailed information as possible from other landlords on this so we can build up as accurate a picture as possible about the issues facing them and their tenants. Would be great if people could post below setting out their experiences. Apparently there is a problem pasting links in the forum so if people want to email me the information I can be contacted at martin.hilditch@insidehousing.co.uk

21/02/2012 11:57 am

Places for People is another of the landlords to have taken part in the research. In Clayton Brook it has 926 social rented properties - 23 per cent of which are occupied by tenants of working age in receipt of HB who are under-occupying their home by one or more bedroom.

It says that the 'main reason for under-occupation appears to be the mismatch betwen the size of households and the available properties'. 32 per cent of the tenants have been in their homes for more than ten years and ten per cent have been in them for more than 20 years.

Given the availability of one bed homes it says the 'main downsizing move that would be likely to result from the housing benefit cuts would be from a two bedroom social rented home to a one bedroom private rented home within LHA limits. This would result in an increase in housing benefit claimed from £74 to £81 a week.'

One in five of the households it identified as under-occupying had children aged under 16 living in the household.

21/02/2012 5:01 pm

The vast majority of comments I've read on here about these plans have been totally against the policy full stop. Well I am happy to say that I completely agree with it - and no I am not a Tory apologist.

Perhaps it would help if those against it could say something about their own situation, as its obvious what the people deemed 'under occupying' will think. Or the housing staff who to have these difficult conversations which they've avoided for years. Personally, I've lived in social housing most of my life. I now occupy a one bedroom property and do not receive HB.

The estate where I live is a prime example of why I support this policy. It has a good mix of nearly 400 properties, about half are one bed flats and bugalows the rest 'family homes'. On my street about 90% of the houses are under occupied by older people. Where is the sense in that? There are plenty of one bed homes for them here but they simply refuse to move. So despite what some posts on here say about older people not getting a look in, that is not the case where I live. In the 10years I've lived here, not a single older person has downsized. This is despite there being 'moving deals' offered by my landlord.

Now not many years ago the landlord had an idea to demolish some of the one bed properties and guess what? Build more family homes!! So can someone who disagrees with this policy please explain why is it logical to demolish one bed homes when there are ample family homes that just happen to be under occupied? That is not logical at all.

So putting that aside I appreciate there is also an ethical element to this policy argument. Now in an ideal world there would be enough homes to house everyone wherever they wanted to live. The problem is we simply do not live in a perfect world. Therefore, there is quite a simple way to look at this. Why should someone be allowed to have the benefit of a family home they no longer require? Just because they qualified for it 20+ years ago does not mean they have a moral right to stay. What about the rights of all those families languishing on waiting lists?

If you apply for any state benefit and your circumstances change then your entitlement to that benefit stops or changes. Why is social housing any different? No one is suggesting forcing people to move out of their home onto the streets. The state is still going to provide a decent home for these people. Alot of people use very emotive language when discussing this policy instead of sticking to the facts.      

21/02/2012 5:41 pm

Where is this location that unlike the rest of the country has a glut of single bedroom homes available for social rent?