"Spiteful" bedroom tax will hit thousands in North-East, MP warns

4:47pm Wednesday 23rd January 2013 in News Photograph of the Author By Robert Merrick, Parliamentary Correspondent

TENS of thousands of North-East families face the misery of leaving their homes - or a steep hike in living costs - because of a "spiteful" new benefit cut, an MP warned yesterday.

Phil Wilson, the Sedgefield MP, used a Commons debate to condemn the so-called 'spare bedroom tax', urging ministers to consider the chaos it will inflict on some of the poorest households, from April.

The shake-up will effectively charge social housing tenants for their spare rooms, cutting housing benefit by 14 per cent for one extra bedroom - or 25 per cent where there are two spare rooms.

The government insists the measure is needed to free up scarce larger social housing properties - in order to tackle overcrowding - and will cut £500m a year off the housing benefit bill.

But Mr Wilson said it was clear that County Durham - and most of the country - lacked the available housing to allow people to downsize.

The housing association Livin [CORR], formerly Sedgefield Borough Homes, had warned that 1,609 of its households would be hit by the 'bedroom tax - yet it had only 204 available one-bedroom properties.

Meanwhile, East Durham Homes, with properties in Wingate, Wheatley Hill, Thornley and Deaf Hill, predicted it would take seven years to rehouse all tenants affected.

Without smaller homes to move to, the tenants at both associations faced a £1.8m bill to cover their lost housing benefit - which was likely to plunge them into rent arrears.

Attacking the tax as "arbitrary, spiteful and deeply cynical", Mr Wilson highlighted the impact on a married couple with children who have grown up and left home.

He said: "They could be forced to leave the family home, because that is what it is - a family home, not just a house. They will have no space for the grandchildren, who will not be able to stay with their grandparents.

"The government plans are spiteful and cynical since the only way the half-a-billion will be saved is if those who live in under occupied properties cut their standard of living still further, trying to remain in their home."

But Steve Webb, the Liberal Democrat housing minister, said people affected should increase their hours at work, adding: "We are talking about a few hours extra a week".

And he pointed out that Durham County Council would receive £880,000 in the next financial year to help those in need - up from £177,000.

Mr Webb also defended expecting older teenagers to share bedrooms, saying: "I shared a bedroom with my brother until I was 18 and it didn't do me any demonstrable harm."

Andy McDonald revealed the case of David Holdsworth in his Middlesbrough constituency, a father-of-one paralysed from the waist down whose wife sleeps in their spare room, because of his disability.

Warning his wife may now be forced to move into a different one-bedroom property - breaking up the family - Mr McDonald said: "This is going to cause untold misery."

Comments(72)

stevegg says...
5:46pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Unfortunately in the real world for those who live in social housing this is a reality check and a step towards rectifying the UK's spiralling housing crisis. Its long overdue that the 'house for life' rule has been overturned. I sympathise with those affected but they have got to be realistic; How can it be right or fair when a family of four is living in squalid bedsit conditions when there are thousands of 2/3 bedroom council houses with only 1 sitting tennant. The point is social housing tennants have had it to good for to long with everything in their favour, thescales are being readjusted and they will have to accept that this rule is no longer an option unless you can afford to pay for it.

Report this post »

loonyleft says...
6:44pm Wed 23 Jan 13

you are all heart steve, how about visiting these people with this problem and give them a good kicking just for good measure,your such a warm sympathetic person.

Report this post »

Gamechanger says...
8:08pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Welfare is long overdue for reform but as usual the tories have taken a sledgehammer approach rather than a considered measured one. Policies dreamt up in a gentlemans club do not have care and compassion at their heart. Millionaire tory elite neither know nor care about what its like to live on the breadline. Unfortunately i fear the worst is yet to come......umless youve just had your top rate of tax cut.

Report this post »

RShire says...
8:27pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Does anyone know how many bedrooms the average MP has in their second home? I suspect that WE fund more than the minimum space that they need! Furthermore if we are only going to fund the minimum, shouldn't there also be a rooms tax on the people who aren't on benefits but live in houses with more than the basic requirement of bedrooms? This would include my household. We have 3 bedrooms for 2 people and we would pay the tax so long as it was applied across the board. People living in mansions or palaces would pay most, but they would most likely find a way round it by boardign up some rooms like they did when there used to be a windows tax many years ago.

Report this post »

Daza says...
8:28pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Welcome to 'The Big Society' so often spouted about by Cameron!

Report this post »

Andie68 says...
8:45pm Wed 23 Jan 13

stevegg wrote:
Unfortunately in the real world for those who live in social housing this is a reality check and a step towards rectifying the UK's spiralling housing crisis. Its long overdue that the 'house for life' rule has been overturned. I sympathise with those affected but they have got to be realistic; How can it be right or fair when a family of four is living in squalid bedsit conditions when there are thousands of 2/3 bedroom council houses with only 1 sitting tennant. The point is social housing tennants have had it to good for to long with everything in their favour, thescales are being readjusted and they will have to accept that this rule is no longer an option unless you can afford to pay for it.
Well said stevegg, I totally agree with you.

Report this post »

mike1952 says...
8:45pm Wed 23 Jan 13

stevegg wrote:
Unfortunately in the real world for those who live in social housing this is a reality check and a step towards rectifying the UK's spiralling housing crisis. Its long overdue that the 'house for life' rule has been overturned. I sympathise with those affected but they have got to be realistic; How can it be right or fair when a family of four is living in squalid bedsit conditions when there are thousands of 2/3 bedroom council houses with only 1 sitting tennant. The point is social housing tennants have had it to good for to long with everything in their favour, thescales are being readjusted and they will have to accept that this rule is no longer an option unless you can afford to pay for it.
Let me guess Stevegg - you have a good job a nice house in a nice area and vote conservative. The expression that applies to all people like you is 'I'm alright Jack' the poor people of the world can pay my share of the burden just because they claim benefits and must therefore be scroungers. Read the article there are very few one bedroomed flats available. Perhaps you would like to create ghetto's for single people claiming benefits then we do not have to mix with them

Report this post »

loan_star says...
9:58pm Wed 23 Jan 13

It might be tough on those that have to move but why should a single person have a house a family could use? Its common sense to make best use of housing stock, but common sense rarely comes into it when it comes to criticising a correct but unpopular decision.

Report this post »

Jolly Roger says...
10:52pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Well I pay full Council Tax in the Durham area and I agree with Steve, why should those on benefit expect to continue living in a house bigger than they needs when they Children have left home.

Us who live in our own houses down size when we get older to let others who need bigger home get them, so why cannot these people do it also.

I don't see why they should say we have lived here for ex number of years and it is MY home, no it is not it is the councils not yours, so if you want to continue living in it pay for it.

Report this post »

kendizx9r says...
11:12pm Wed 23 Jan 13

not nice this but who is the plebs getting at surely not the pensioner who have been in there house for many years and never missed a payment,

mr scrooge has nowt on this goverment

Report this post »

loonyleft says...
12:40am Thu 24 Jan 13

It be better if there were smaller homes to move into, but often there are not.

Report this post »

thehogman says...
9:41am Thu 24 Jan 13

Not spiteful at all, it is without doubt one of the better moves of this government, I don't support their views politically but this measure is long overdue.
I know of one person who is in possession of a 3 bed roomed council house however sleeps at a friends house every night barring none!, this has gone on for years; it's cases like this that keep needy families struggling in small unsuitable accommodation; that said it should also be made clear at the very beginning to all social housing tenants’ that as their family members grow and leave home their tenancy takes on a new leasing path, likewise these houses should not be past onto live at home lone adult offspring

Report this post »

Quakerz says...
12:13pm Thu 24 Jan 13

loan_star wrote:
It might be tough on those that have to move but why should a single person have a house a family could use? Its common sense to make best use of housing stock, but common sense rarely comes into it when it comes to criticising a correct but unpopular decision.
The biggest problem is there are not enough houses to downsize to.

If you're just a couple and the kids have left home you need a 1 bedroom house under these regulations. There are simply not enough 1 bedroom houses, so you could end up downsizing from a 3 bedroom to a 2 bedroom (more of them available) and you would still be charged for the extra room. How is that fair, if you've voluntarily agreed to downsize?

I have a housing association house through Livin, and have 2 kids, a boy and a girl. Therefore I have a 3 bedroomed house. And over the years I've put a lot of time and effort in making it nice...I don't really want to move when the kids have grown up and left home. But I understand the housing situation, and the need to free up space for families.

That said, the way people are going to pay for unoccupied bedrooms is through having their housing benefit and council tax cut, so this move is not going to affect all tenants.

I don't claim any housing or council tax benefit, because I'm working and earn enough to not need it, so in theory I have no benefit to cut, and no cost to myself. No reason to move out then.

As many people will be the same situation as me, not claiming benefits - the housing situation won't be eased that much at all, therefore I conclude that is just another scheme by the Tories to marginalise those on benefits, and make their lives more difficult. They're hitting the poorest people yet again, the people who can't afford to be hit.

Report this post »

behonest says...
12:58pm Thu 24 Jan 13

If a tenant willingly agrees to downsize but is refused (because of lack of a smaller house) then why should the benefit be cut?
How will this measure free up larger social housing, if there are no smaller houses to move into? It won't - so it will just be another Tory tax.
Of course it's spiteful. And, as usual, the Tory taxes hit the poorest and most vulnerable.

As for the utter rubbish that the Lib Dem is quoted as spouting, 'people affected should increase their hours at work', will he guarantee that everyone will be entitled to do this? Of course he won't, 'cos he can't.

The Lib Dem also said: "I shared a bedroom with my brother until I was 18 and it didn't do me any demonstrable harm." I think we'd all disagree with that pal, you joined the Lib Dems.

Report this post »

Darlogirl1 says...
3:19pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Go Cameron...someone finally trying to sort this country out..yes those most affected seem to be the ones on benefits etc but this should be the case ...I’m sorry i will get lots of back lash BUT why should it be easy for people who are on benefits and hard for the normal working class who are struggling to keep the roof over their heads...

If you live in a council property and you have 2 rooms spare you should be looking at moving out or pay more . There is so many people in overcrowded properties in Darlington never mind around UK. What everyone needs to remember if you live in these houses you do not own them and actually have no rights at all.

Im sick of people on here who are moaning and having ago at any one who dares to agree with the Tories, we have sat back and watched the Government over the years drag our country into despair and FINALLY a man who is backing our country and trying to dig us out.

Cuts have to be had yes ONLY because Labour all but killed this country.

Go Cameron long may you stand....And before any one whines on I was brought up in a council house with a single mother who worked her back side of bringing up us kids.

And please don’t say there is no jobs now because of Tories as this is blatantly not the case this is because of Labour ….am I the only one who sees this???? I shake my head when I read peoples comments!!

Report this post »

victorjames says...
3:51pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Of course housing social housing needs to be allocated more effectively but it defies belief that any one would think that the way to approach this matter is to make the lifes of the very poorest in society even more miserable. perhaps even splitting families up or becoming homeless. I suspect that Darlogirl will never see it that way. Shes entitled to her opinion but its rather sad that she should view her fellow citizens in this way. I always take the view "There but for the grace etc etc

Report this post »

victorjames says...
3:55pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Sorry I seem to have beggered up the comments column and it wouldn't let me out till I'd posted a comment. Sorry

Report this post »

greenfinger says...
3:55pm Thu 24 Jan 13

outstanding idea, why dont they rent the room out if they dont want to pay. this would create an even less burden on the tax payer because they would be paying their own way.

Report this post »

behonest says...
4:46pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Yes Darlogirl, if people have 2 bedrooms spare they should ask the council to downsize them. The trouble is that the council are not able to.

The Tories know this but are happy to say that even if you want to move down, but you are told you cannot, we Tories will still cut your benefit by 25%. Fair play? And they can't rent the rooms out 'cos that will get their benefit removed.

Mind you, all benefit claimants have 2 foreign holidays a year, drive BMWs, smoke 60 a day, drink 10 pints a day and own 50inch plasma TVs. Must be true, my local Tory MP told me so.

Report this post »

Mythought1 says...
5:16pm Thu 24 Jan 13

When will people realise - Benefits and Housing are not a persons right it is a hand out by the government,, they are there to use in times of hardship. Everyday we hear somebody complain about benefits being cut - and now being asked to downsize or RECEIVE LESS HANDOUTS if you are stopping someone else living in a property that is designed for their family size. If people spent less time complaining and more time seeking work - problem solved, the irony is the comments being made on here are being done on the Internet - if I was in a position where I couldn't afford the property I lived in or rented then the first thing to go would be the Internet.... It's ok I'll help pay for that, probably plugged into the computer in the spare bedroom you think I should continue paying for as well...........

Report this post »

IanfromCrook says...
5:39pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Darlogirl1 wrote:
Go Cameron...someone finally trying to sort this country out..yes those most affected seem to be the ones on benefits etc but this should be the case ...I’m sorry i will get lots of back lash BUT why should it be easy for people who are on benefits and hard for the normal working class who are struggling to keep the roof over their heads...

If you live in a council property and you have 2 rooms spare you should be looking at moving out or pay more . There is so many people in overcrowded properties in Darlington never mind around UK. What everyone needs to remember if you live in these houses you do not own them and actually have no rights at all.

Im sick of people on here who are moaning and having ago at any one who dares to agree with the Tories, we have sat back and watched the Government over the years drag our country into despair and FINALLY a man who is backing our country and trying to dig us out.

Cuts have to be had yes ONLY because Labour all but killed this country.

Go Cameron long may you stand....And before any one whines on I was brought up in a council house with a single mother who worked her back side of bringing up us kids.

And please don’t say there is no jobs now because of Tories as this is blatantly not the case this is because of Labour ….am I the only one who sees this???? I shake my head when I read peoples comments!!
Tories destroyed the good concept of plentiful cheap social housing. Those houses were never replaced. They also destroyed any prospect of the call that some politicians of yesteryear used to call for i.e.. full employment. The vast majority of people affected by this measure will be pensioners living in larger than they need property and low paid working families who have a spare room due to a child growing up and leaving them with a spare room. As there is a chronic shortage of all housing, particularly one bedroom the result will be a push towards poverty for these people.
Not to mention the divorced couples that will no longer be able to share custody Britain may have had a few cracks but it is the Tories that are holding the sledgehammer.

Report this post »

Mythought1 says...
5:57pm Thu 24 Jan 13

I agree with part of what your saying.....but why Is It down to you and me to CONTINUE paying for the lifestyle, and whilst we continue doing so there is zero incentive for those on handouts to take responsibility for their own lives, instead only to complain the government are making it hard for them.

Report this post »

Adam Walker says...
6:14pm Thu 24 Jan 13

'Phil Wilson, the Sedgefield MP, used a Commons debate to condemn the so-called 'spare bedroom tax', urging ministers to consider the chaos it will inflict on some of the poorest households, from April'.

Would this be the same Phil Wilson who campaigned to keep the Post Offices open under some media hype, photos, T-shirt wearing etc. and then voted to close them in Westminster? I wouldn’t trust him or any of the other professional fascists who lord over us. Welcome to Orwell’s 1984. Best get used to it folks, its going to get a lot lot worse.

Report this post »

Jonn says...
7:28pm Thu 24 Jan 13

I seem to remember (only just) when the word 'scrounger' became synonymous with benefit claimants during the 80's and the recessions, then here we are again, recessions and the word 'scrounger' rears it's head. Coincidence or Government propaganda?
1 billion benefit fraud or 70 billion tax avoidance a year. Which one should take priority?
14 trillion hidden away in tax havens. Does this not concern you?
1 trillion given to the banking sector so they can carry on their corrupt practices. Do you not mind that you are financing this?
MP's having tax payer subsidised bars and restaurants while record numbers are using food banks.
Some 'scrounger' has an extra bedroom, lets make them pay more money or kick them out.
Many of you have got your priorities all wrong.
All the money is being sucked out of this country and going to the top.

Report this post »

Mythought1 says...
7:48pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Jonn wrote:
I seem to remember (only just) when the word 'scrounger' became synonymous with benefit claimants during the 80's and the recessions, then here we are again, recessions and the word 'scrounger' rears it's head. Coincidence or Government propaganda?
1 billion benefit fraud or 70 billion tax avoidance a year. Which one should take priority?
14 trillion hidden away in tax havens. Does this not concern you?
1 trillion given to the banking sector so they can carry on their corrupt practices. Do you not mind that you are financing this?
MP's having tax payer subsidised bars and restaurants while record numbers are using food banks.
Some 'scrounger' has an extra bedroom, lets make them pay more money or kick them out.
Many of you have got your priorities all wrong.
All the money is being sucked out of this country and going to the top.
Your on the button with some of your points!! You are suggesting that charging people for unoccupied rooms is of low priority. Please remember they are not charging them, they (the government) are giving less benefit towards the house....that they no longer need. there is a big difference! As for tax avoidance and tax havens, I believe they are onto it, it's all I have heard on the news for the last four days. Surely you are not suggesting they do one at a time?? Anyway we could list endless ways of wasting money or recouping money but the topic in question is - is it fair to REDUCE benefit paid to someone to live in a house at our expense that they no longer need. The answer quite clearly is no! If they want the extra room they are going to have to pay for it themselves, if they can't afford it - then neither can I!

Report this post »

gramps427 says...
8:13pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Its amazing how little understanding of the world they live in some people have.The reality is that people only receive benefits if they are unemployed? False many people receive benefit who are well off. in employment or who have children. Housing & Council tax benefit is paid to many people who are in work, but who are so poorly paid that they could not meet basic costs. They are just as likely to be hit by the changes as are the unemployed; like the unemployed they will have their quality/standard of living seriously cut. Not only will they be hit by cost of living increases they will see the value of the support they require to meet a very basic standard of living also hit- a double whammy, how fair is that? Unlike home owners they can not sell a property, with its potential for profit and require housing that is available to rent; the very type of housing that Governments have more or less ignored/banned since they made councils sell off houses and prevented them from building more. Government have already set a maximum price for housing benefit, which is far less than most private rented accommodation charge, so to penalise people for the failure of Government policy and planning is not just wrong its immoral. All benefits should be means tested, pensions included & remember we all pay taxes even the unemployed; check your energy bills for the hidden taxes of "Green Energy" 20% and 16%, vat on purchases etc.

Report this post »

spragger says...
8:32pm Thu 24 Jan 13

So many beefing about lack of affordable housing & we have 10's of thousands of taxpayer funded Council houses underutilised.
If you want a house for life, buy one with the money you have earned.

This will help prevent building houses in the daftest of places, probably in your back garden, or over the fence, or the dales.

It was about time this misuse of taxpayer funded resources was dealt with

Report this post »

Mythought1 says...
8:35pm Thu 24 Jan 13

gramps427 wrote:
Its amazing how little understanding of the world they live in some people have.The reality is that people only receive benefits if they are unemployed? False many people receive benefit who are well off. in employment or who have children. Housing & Council tax benefit is paid to many people who are in work, but who are so poorly paid that they could not meet basic costs. They are just as likely to be hit by the changes as are the unemployed; like the unemployed they will have their quality/standard of living seriously cut. Not only will they be hit by cost of living increases they will see the value of the support they require to meet a very basic standard of living also hit- a double whammy, how fair is that? Unlike home owners they can not sell a property, with its potential for profit and require housing that is available to rent; the very type of housing that Governments have more or less ignored/banned since they made councils sell off houses and prevented them from building more. Government have already set a maximum price for housing benefit, which is far less than most private rented accommodation charge, so to penalise people for the failure of Government policy and planning is not just wrong its immoral. All benefits should be means tested, pensions included & remember we all pay taxes even the unemployed; check your energy bills for the hidden taxes of "Green Energy" 20% and 16%, vat on purchases etc.
We could go on forever about who receives benefits, different situations, we could also go on about your last comment 'we all pay taxes even the unemployed' - which is taxing benefits that have been awarded in another way. The fact remains - is it fair we pay for someone whom receives benefits to live in a bigger house than they require? Please answer yes or no to that question??

Report this post »

loonyleft says...
8:58pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Is it fair to take £14 plus of a single person who only has £71 to keep themselves for a week when there are no 1 bedroom properties for them to move into?

Report this post »

loonyleft says...
9:05pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Spragger,If tight fisted bosses paid decent wages maybe people could afford to live.If they had not sold of council houses and refused to build new ones,maybe there would not be a problem.

Report this post »

loonyleft says...
9:09pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Darlogirl, Yes go Cameron and keep going tilll you get to the white cliffs of Dover,before you kill all of us off.

Report this post »

tomtopper says...
11:17pm Thu 24 Jan 13

The problem I have is that a lot of normal working folk can only afford an ex local authority house...Shifting people out of the remaining houses who've been there for years, family grown up etc, and putting a load of the younger chavs in with a million kids, will ghetto-ise some decent estates..
They need to be offered barrack style accommodation only, the new breed of workshy.. Never happen, but an interesting concept nonetheless...

Report this post »

Adam Walker says...
7:54am Fri 25 Jan 13

If we removed all illegal parasitic immigrants forcefully, properly and offered those here ‘legally’ repatriation there would be plenty of housing for our people and no one would have to pay this silly Orwellian tax because they happen to live in a house with a bit more space.

I wonder if those with 6 different wives in 6 different homes in their no-go area with scores of kids, paid for by the tax payer will also be affected or whether they will be left alone by the authorities for fear of them being labelled racist.

We could also stop sending tens of billions of pounds of our tax money to foreign countries, leave the EU, pull out of foreign conflicts and stop providing an international health service. We could do a lot more to make things better for us. Its not difficult, its not rocket science, its just common sense. Stroll on the time when our elected politicians look after us for a change.

Report this post »

loonyleft says...
11:09am Fri 25 Jan 13

tomtopper,Aother person full of care and compassion,how about putting incompetent bankers and politicians in barracks.!!!

Report this post »

Starteck2002 says...
12:06pm Fri 25 Jan 13

I know someone that lives in a 4 bedroom council property, has three boys ranging from 9 - 15yrs old and has been assessed to have a house that is too big. Under the new rules, it appears it is expected that your children should have to share a bedroom or you will be penalised. I am not on benefits, live in a three bedroom council house with my partner and our three young kids - the bedrooms are so small that I had to 'modify' a standard bed to make it fit (cut 2.4" off the length!). Perhaps they should also take overall square footage into consideration. In general it seems all council houses have a 'box room' classed as a bedroom. I do think this move is unfair and understand that 1 person living in a three bedroom house is something that needs to be adressed but there are far better ways this could be handled - give incentives rather than penalise people (and for the record, yes, those on benefits are *people* too!).

Report this post »

aquickrant says...
12:39pm Fri 25 Jan 13

One of the best ideas yet to come from politicians. Why should a taxpayer who would most likely love to have a spare room for visitiors/grandchill
dren etc but cant afford it, then be paying through there taxe's for someone receiving council housing benefit to have that spare room. This needs to happen. Too many people who have large properties and only have 1-2 occupents is causing the property shortfall. And all the rubbish about it being a 'family home' for those who have left home is rubbish. What about people who still have familys at home but cant get a 'family home' because these people are holding onto the larger properties?

Report this post »

Fossildog says...
1:32pm Fri 25 Jan 13

Starteck2002 wrote:
I know someone that lives in a 4 bedroom council property, has three boys ranging from 9 - 15yrs old and has been assessed to have a house that is too big. Under the new rules, it appears it is expected that your children should have to share a bedroom or you will be penalised. I am not on benefits, live in a three bedroom council house with my partner and our three young kids - the bedrooms are so small that I had to 'modify' a standard bed to make it fit (cut 2.4" off the length!). Perhaps they should also take overall square footage into consideration. In general it seems all council houses have a 'box room' classed as a bedroom. I do think this move is unfair and understand that 1 person living in a three bedroom house is something that needs to be adressed but there are far better ways this could be handled - give incentives rather than penalise people (and for the record, yes, those on benefits are *people* too!).
I was brought up in a small 3 bedroom council house. I shared. Room with my two brothers and my two sisters shared a room. Didn't do me any harm. A 4 bedroom with 3 boys is not a problem at all.

Report this post »

loonyleft says...
2:51pm Fri 25 Jan 13

Aquickrant, people with a spare bedroom havn't caused the shortfall,over thirty years of not building affordable properties and selling of the onest he country had caused the problem.

Report this post »

TaxpayerofDarlo says...
3:31pm Fri 25 Jan 13

n

Report this post »

greenfinger says...
3:35pm Fri 25 Jan 13

loonyleft wrote:
Is it fair to take £14 plus of a single person who only has £71 to keep themselves for a week when there are no 1 bedroom properties for them to move into?
yes!

Report this post »

loonyleft says...
4:26pm Fri 25 Jan 13

Greenfinger,another warm hearted person,the sort to somebody you can depend on for help in a crisis_not!!!

Report this post »

ajtib3 says...
6:34pm Fri 25 Jan 13

I know a couple who had 4 kids living in a publicly owned house in London with over 200 bedrooms.

Kids have left now -will they have to move out?

Report this post »

spragger says...
6:42pm Fri 25 Jan 13

loonyleft wrote:
Spragger,If tight fisted bosses paid decent wages maybe people could afford to live.If they had not sold of council houses and refused to build new ones,maybe there would not be a problem.
Well, move yer **** and get a job that meets the requirement.
- Get off the hard working taxpayers back
- So many people, so many whinges, so great an expectation someone will keep 'em

Report this post »

loonyleft says...
7:01pm Fri 25 Jan 13

Spragger ,Pity you didn't read my comment properly,a lot of bosses won't or can't pay a decent wage that's why a lot of working people have to apply for benefits ,a fact that has been mentioned many times on this blog but doesn't seem to sink in with some people.Nobody is whinging, it's just a fact that if you do not have any spare money in the cash you have to spend each week,and there is no smaller homes to downsize to,then a lot of people will end up homeless and losing there jobs,a fact that cost the government more when they have to find new homes for people. Another fact that doesn't seem to sink in with some people, governments have avoided building affordable homes for the last thirty years or so ,which is not the fault of people who may lose their homes, and by the way less of the insults son,i don't take kindly to threats, so behave yourself you don't want to be at the end of a long wait at a and e do you.

Report this post »

Duke of Aycliffe says...
7:18pm Fri 25 Jan 13

Times are hard & everyone including the Country has to live within their means. This is not nasty or spiteful it is just being realistic.
I bought my 3 bedroom house because it is what I could afford, I would like a 6 bedroom detached but I can't afford it, & I don't expect the taxpayer to pay for it.
When I'm very flush with cash I'm pretty generous with my kids pocket money. Like everyone else I've had to cut back so, less pocket money, fewer days out, packed Sky in, we no longer eat out, etc.
Why should benefits claimants be any different? Also, I'm sick of hearing about immigrants swamping the NE. The Eastern Europeans came & did the factory & shift work that a lot of British people didn't want.
The UK is basically broke, too many taking out & not enough putting back in. Simples.

Report this post »

victorjames says...
7:37pm Fri 25 Jan 13

greenfinger wrote:
loonyleft wrote: Is it fair to take £14 plus of a single person who only has £71 to keep themselves for a week when there are no 1 bedroom properties for them to move into?
yes!
God help us all if any of us fall on hard times and have to rely on people like you. I can't believe that you would think this a fair, It's people like you who are the children of that mad old hag Thatcher who ranted that there was no such thing as society, only individuals.

Report this post »

Starteck2002 says...
9:11pm Fri 25 Jan 13

Just realised my mistake - it's a 3 bed hour they live in, not 4

Report this post »

c.o.p.d.sufferer says...
9:51pm Fri 25 Jan 13

j would like to say that while part of me agrees to this i think the people in this situation shouldn't have to pay the bedroom tax. they should be given homes ready to move into because it isn't there fault they have spare bedrooms. and i feel if not careful then people that can still have children will have more just to be able to stay put so i think the government, are treading the thin blue line. and they surely need to be more supportive.and help these people get smaller homes. they bend over backwards to help foreign people and other countries so why not help there own countrie and there own people there are millions that cant afford to buy a house and why should they be forced out onto the streets.or is that what the government wants in the hope that people will say move in here il have ya it don't work like that in this day and age i really feel sorry for my grandchildren there will come a point there will end up being a war if he carry's on we know the countrie is in a state but there must be other ways with out hitting the poor all the time.why doesn't he hit the rice a bit harder for a change would not surprise me if he don't have a mass suicide outside number ten . but even then he will say its not his doing he is going to far now and he needs telling

Report this post »

vercingetorix says...
9:52pm Fri 25 Jan 13

5 of us lived in one room for seven years.....thank God we dont have THAT anymore but .......this measure is the most ridiculous of all those measures and cuts brought in by the government ..as Ive said before ,its like a man tens of thousands in debt trying to solve his financial problems by changing to a cheaper brand of washing up liquid

Report this post »

c.o.p.d.sufferer says...
9:56pm Fri 25 Jan 13

stevegg wrote:
Unfortunately in the real world for those who live in social housing this is a reality check and a step towards rectifying the UK's spiralling housing crisis. Its long overdue that the 'house for life' rule has been overturned. I sympathise with those affected but they have got to be realistic; How can it be right or fair when a family of four is living in squalid bedsit conditions when there are thousands of 2/3 bedroom council houses with only 1 sitting tennant. The point is social housing tennants have had it to good for to long with everything in their favour, thescales are being readjusted and they will have to accept that this rule is no longer an option unless you can afford to pay for it.
no doubt your a home owner steve bully for you if you are but this is not a perfect world and i hope your little world never comes crashing down on you because people like you and all to easy to lay down rules laws and such but when it happens to be the shoe on the other foot your also the first to cry about it

Report this post »

c.o.p.d.sufferer says...
10:00pm Fri 25 Jan 13

RShire wrote:
Does anyone know how many bedrooms the average MP has in their second home? I suspect that WE fund more than the minimum space that they need! Furthermore if we are only going to fund the minimum, shouldn't there also be a rooms tax on the people who aren't on benefits but live in houses with more than the basic requirement of bedrooms? This would include my household. We have 3 bedrooms for 2 people and we would pay the tax so long as it was applied across the board. People living in mansions or palaces would pay most, but they would most likely find a way round it by boardign up some rooms like they did when there used to be a windows tax many years ago.
i could not agree more with you as for the fat mps they should be made to buy there own stuff instead of putting it down to expenses and they should all be given a minimum wage because im dam sure we can save at least a few million a year there

Report this post »

Fossildog says...
3:45am Sat 26 Jan 13

vercingetorix wrote:
5 of us lived in one room for seven years.....thank God we dont have THAT anymore but .......this measure is the most ridiculous of all those measures and cuts brought in by the government ..as Ive said before ,its like a man tens of thousands in debt trying to solve his financial problems by changing to a cheaper brand of washing up liquid
So are you saying that if you are in debt you may as well continue buying the more expensive washing up liquid, not try to cut costs at all?

Or are you saying that the government is just tinkering around the edges of the issue and they should make savage cuts?

Report this post »

BMD says...
5:20am Sat 26 Jan 13

This is great news for the Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Turkish, African and Jeremy Kyle families.

It is common knowledge that overseas cultures have larger families, therefore when the indigenous residents are forced into bed-sits or smaller accommodation, the vacant properties will be available for our migrant neighbours.

Usually larger properties have gardens, which will also accommodate the goats and chickens.

Report this post »

greenfinger says...
12:24pm Sat 26 Jan 13

id stop benefits altogether and see how many would come here then. starve the indigenous population into cheap labour that they've done everything to avoid. the Chinese economy does well not paying any, they leave it to families to look after there own. then if they think they're taking the mick they dont got nowt, thats the real world!

Report this post »

Starteck2002 says...
8:09pm Sat 26 Jan 13

It might be recieved a bit better if there was incentive to give up the bigger property, rather than penalise people. It just seems way too easy to attack the lower echelons of society rather than tackle the real issues like UK funds going overseas, student grants to people that have never lived in this country, overseas combat, foreign aid, foreign owned utility companies hiking up prices, banks making blunders - there is plenty of money that could be recovered or saved from those alone.

I'm sure in a year or two we will see massive homelessness, housing associations and councils with an abundance or empty property that they can only give to the kids with 6 kids due to new rules, private landlords unwilling to rent to benefit claimants due to the risks of not getting rent and some very wealthy debt collection agencies and a bogged down small claims legal system.

I understand we have a national debt so as a nation we should first be stopping this Government wasting money as all I see is them hitting the wrong people all the time.

Report this post »

George19 says...
6:44am Sun 27 Jan 13

Surely this should mean NO MPs or MINISTERS should be allowed to have a second home in london that is any larger than 1 bedroom as the rent for their second homes is paid for by the public taxpayer which in effect becomes social housing, am I right or am I right, oh I forgot They (govt) are all in it together, self serving sods.

Report this post »

tomtopper says...
1:34pm Sun 27 Jan 13

loonyleft wrote:
tomtopper,Aother person full of care and compassion,how about putting incompetent bankers and politicians in barracks.!!!
Yes I do have compassion... Could you explain why you think I lack it please? Compassion is the understanding of ones suffering and the wish to alleviate it.. These people would suffer less if they were in a place with all required help to get them back to work and off benefits thus alleviating said stress

Report this post »

rainbow socks says...
2:58pm Sun 27 Jan 13

I am a single parent, I work in education so am term time only. I receive a small amount of housing benefit. Last year I moved from a 2 bed house to a 3 bed one, saving me £50 a month. I moved to save money. If there were loads of 3 bed places available at the same price I would have taken one but they are the same or more expensive. Do I deserve to be penalised for this? I already lost £120 a month in benefits by moving and am in debt as a result. As for upping my hours at work, great idea, if there were any available! Also, moving house cost me a huge amount of money - deposit, estate agent fees and a months rent in advance. I could not afford to do this again.

Report this post »

greenfinger says...
6:04pm Sun 27 Jan 13

tomtopper wrote:
loonyleft wrote:
tomtopper,Aother person full of care and compassion,how about putting incompetent bankers and politicians in barracks.!!!
Yes I do have compassion... Could you explain why you think I lack it please? Compassion is the understanding of ones suffering and the wish to alleviate it.. These people would suffer less if they were in a place with all required help to get them back to work and off benefits thus alleviating said stress
very well said. think of all the money they'll save in electric/heating a smaller house or flat. or if they decide to get a job they could just pay the difference and no need to move! the people who are really paying for this support the idea, so just get use to it.

Report this post »

Jen204 says...
9:35pm Sun 27 Jan 13

This article was about a debate in parliament about the bedroom tax.
It did not mention that not a single Tory or Libdem MP bothered to turn up for it.
Just shows how bothered they are about making poor people even poorer.

Report this post »

Jonn says...
8:22am Mon 28 Jan 13

It's very odd how many people think housing benefit is only paid out to 'workshy scroungers'. 90% of all new claims in the last 2 years were made by people who are in work.
Not one person should suffer until all those bankster criminals who comitted the crime of the century are locked up behind bars and paid every penny back.

Report this post »

Auldgadgey says...
10:43am Mon 28 Jan 13

All the above have been taken in by this government, you are all fighting between yourselves. The tactic is quite simple, divide and rule, while we all look with suspicion at our neighbours the real criminals carry on as usual.
"Look over there, don't look up here"

Report this post »

Copley23 says...
4:29pm Mon 28 Jan 13

What really really hacks me off......

I saved and bought my property....and still am paying for it.

I would LOVE to live in say...Egglestone or Romaldkirk.....or even in the Yorkshire Dales.

But guess what, I can't afford it. I work hard and pay my way.

So time and again I am incensed by headlines that read 'Affordable Homes to be built...' in areas that I could only aspire to.

Guess what, it's a hard world. If I couldn't afford my mortgage, I would have to sell up.

Nice opener Stevegg. Although I have digressed a little, I agree with you entirely.

This is nothing to do with politics, it's to do with fairness.

Report this post »

greenfinger says...
5:14pm Mon 28 Jan 13

here here! they think they deserve the best for nothing. sick to the back teeth of hearing them winge on thinking they're hard done by. it doesn't work like that. workers move if they cannot afford to live where there are. makes me sick. we've all have had the chance to make something of ourselves, just some made most of the opportunities on offer while others didn't for whatever reason. cest la vie!

Report this post »

simmo707 says...
5:31pm Mon 28 Jan 13

BROKEN BRITAIN UNDER TORIES RE: BEDROOM TAX
Having watched ‘Pats Petition’ being debated in Parliament it was farcical ,the Labour MP who brought it up did not present it as the worded petition we all signed and it took Cameron approximately 1 minute to dismiss it ,so much for Petitions .We all agree that the Government are acting inhumanely and immorally ,in certain circumstances you have to fight fire with fire .We have two basic scenario’s .Councils cannot rehouse all those tenants that the Bedroom Tax applies to and cannot afford it .Those that will pay it because they are too attached to their homes and will not move although it will be a struggle .What happens if you all collectively refuse to move and refuse to pay the Bedroom Tax.
The Bedroom Tax will have to be reviewed because Local Councils would throw the ball back into the Governments hands .The Poll Tax caused riots and was amended ,riots engage violence ,non compliance is a legal method of showing discontent .How did women eventually receive the vote .What about the Jarrow March .ACTIONS speak louder than words .The by word for 2013 should be NON COMPLIANCE ,they don’t have enough bailiff’s or court time to deal with just your forum all at once never mind other groups .
www.brokenbritainund
ertories.com

Report this post »

greenfinger says...
6:05pm Mon 28 Jan 13

rubbish, they'll simply take it from your benefits and wages before you even get the money. a bit like the csa do now. very easy and simple.

Report this post »

Bumbleb43 says...
8:35pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Well said!

Report this post »

Bumbleb43 says...
8:45pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Duke of Aycliffe wrote:
Times are hard & everyone including the Country has to live within their means. This is not nasty or spiteful it is just being realistic. I bought my 3 bedroom house because it is what I could afford, I would like a 6 bedroom detached but I can't afford it, & I don't expect the taxpayer to pay for it. When I'm very flush with cash I'm pretty generous with my kids pocket money. Like everyone else I've had to cut back so, less pocket money, fewer days out, packed Sky in, we no longer eat out, etc. Why should benefits claimants be any different? Also, I'm sick of hearing about immigrants swamping the NE. The Eastern Europeans came & did the factory & shift work that a lot of British people didn't want. The UK is basically broke, too many taking out & not enough putting back in. Simples.
Totally agree .... when you BUY a property you purchase what you can afford - no-one helps us. Like you we are economising because we still have to put money away for repairs etc!
We all have to economise.

Report this post »

outragedofmiltonkeynes says...
11:23pm Mon 28 Jan 13

I started reading these comments and got bored half way through. Drop severel hundred bombs on the areas inhabited by these moronic tracksuit wearing eeeeaarrrr arrrm stoned me like cretinous leeches. Kill the lot of them the worthless parasites and let me live in a country where shoplifting halfwits dont spit all over the pavement and think its acceptable to summon their illegitimate offspring with the words **** ere you little fukin ****.Where else in the world can dirty, scag injecting neanderthals strut about thinking they are clever whilst being given money for doing nothing? I hate what this country has become in a very short space of time.

Report this post »

bishoplass says...
9:20am Tue 29 Jan 13

darlo girl.......i suppose you are fortunate enough to have a job. i was made redundant 15 months ago and live in a two bedroom council house. i would prefer to work and have applied for more than 600 jobs in that time. i am educated and skilled. the competition for the jobs is fierce but i don't stop trying. i struggle to survive on the benefit i receive whilst trying to become employed again. the bedroom tax will seriously affect me. there are few one bedroom properties in my area. add to that, it costs money to move. money i don't have. perhaps there are people who abuse the system but there are many like me who just need the help until employment is secured again. it is unfair to paint all of us needing help as worthless and lazy.

Report this post »

Jonn says...
7:05pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Darlogirl1 wrote:
Go Cameron...someone finally trying to sort this country out..yes those most affected seem to be the ones on benefits etc but this should be the case ...I’m sorry i will get lots of back lash BUT why should it be easy for people who are on benefits and hard for the normal working class who are struggling to keep the roof over their heads...

If you live in a council property and you have 2 rooms spare you should be looking at moving out or pay more . There is so many people in overcrowded properties in Darlington never mind around UK. What everyone needs to remember if you live in these houses you do not own them and actually have no rights at all.

Im sick of people on here who are moaning and having ago at any one who dares to agree with the Tories, we have sat back and watched the Government over the years drag our country into despair and FINALLY a man who is backing our country and trying to dig us out.

Cuts have to be had yes ONLY because Labour all but killed this country.

Go Cameron long may you stand....And before any one whines on I was brought up in a council house with a single mother who worked her back side of bringing up us kids.

And please don’t say there is no jobs now because of Tories as this is blatantly not the case this is because of Labour ….am I the only one who sees this???? I shake my head when I read peoples comments!!
I am sorry that you feel Mr Cameron is some sort of saviour for this country.
Unfortunately, Mr Cameron comes from a long line of stock that are bred to have nothing but contempt for the majority of the population and so he does not give a toss about you or me in the slightest.
When a multi millionaire with a multi millionairess wife claim DLA for their disabled son then you have to seriously question their priorites and morals especially as his Government are now slashing said benefit. If you watched lastnights Panorama, you could not fail to be shocked at how one poor girl with severe learning difficulties and disabilities was declared fit for work. Would Cameron ever have let his son go through the same process? Would he hell.
You think these cuts are saving all the tax payers money? Do some unbiased research. The money is purely being redirected from the benefits system to large businessess and corporations. Tory party donors winning huge DWP contracts to profiteer at the expense of the unemployed, disabled, sick and mentally ill.
You must be so proud of your leader.
And, if you think Mr Cameron and his Government are running the show, making the big decisions, then you need to look again.

Report this post »

bobby3 says...
8:33pm Tue 29 Jan 13

we live in a 3 bedroom council house i have 3 kids my husband works hard and im sorry but nearly everyone in my street is on benefits and have spare rooms and they dont struggle they drive cars and do a lot more than we can do

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree