Protesters voice their opposition to the bedroom tax (From The Northern Echo)

The requirements of all families change over time. As the family grows one needs more rooms and once 'they have flown the nest' fewer rooms are required. In the private sector this results in people moving up the housing ladder and thereafter downsizing. Why should it be any different with public sector housing? Those tenants who, quite reasonably, ask for larger houses when their families grown should also have the common decency to ask to be downsized when their families 'fly the nest' so that others may benefit.

There are one and two bedroom flats freely available and, even if this requires transference into the private renting market, the housing benefits that accompany ESSA and the likes more than cover those bills - if one looks for instance, at the rents of darlington, stockton, middlesbrough, bishop (to example but for).

If people wish to live in larger houses than that which they need - they should pay for it. If I choose to have a five bedroom house - whilst single - I have to pay extra council tax, extra water rates and more of a mortgage. It is my choice. If I continue to live in such a houses when retired it is my choice to spend the extra money. In the same way, if the public housing tenant wishes to be in a larger house than that which they need - they should pay for it - rather than expecting another hand-out. Indeed, by moving to a smaller house many tenants will save money through lower heating costs etc (just as their private sector/mortgage counterparts do when they downsize).

This is not, as some posts have suggested a tax, neither is it an attack on the poor. It is, however, a realisation that in providing social housing it needs to be 'appropriate housing' 2 bedrooms for parents and one child, 3 bedrooms for parents and 2 children etc - not a free for all. I do not disagree that some will need social housing (but not a singular house) for life - but that social housing needs to be appropriate and to change as needs change.

Resources are limited and those in subsidised housing need to realise that they have a duty of responsibility to the rest of society as well. There is only a limited pot of money and it cannot forever be shared out (more and more) to those who believe that they should receive more than they need.

Voice-of-reality wrote:
The requirements of all families change over time. As the family grows one needs more rooms and once 'they have flown the nest' fewer rooms are required. In the private sector this results in people moving up the housing ladder and thereafter downsizing. Why should it be any different with public sector housing? Those tenants who, quite reasonably, ask for larger houses when their families grown should also have the common decency to ask to be downsized when their families 'fly the nest' so that others may benefit.

There are one and two bedroom flats freely available and, even if this requires transference into the private renting market, the housing benefits that accompany ESSA and the likes more than cover those bills - if one looks for instance, at the rents of darlington, stockton, middlesbrough, bishop (to example but for).

If people wish to live in larger houses than that which they need - they should pay for it. If I choose to have a five bedroom house - whilst single - I have to pay extra council tax, extra water rates and more of a mortgage. It is my choice. If I continue to live in such a houses when retired it is my choice to spend the extra money. In the same way, if the public housing tenant wishes to be in a larger house than that which they need - they should pay for it - rather than expecting another hand-out. Indeed, by moving to a smaller house many tenants will save money through lower heating costs etc (just as their private sector/mortgage counterparts do when they downsize).

This is not, as some posts have suggested a tax, neither is it an attack on the poor. It is, however, a realisation that in providing social housing it needs to be 'appropriate housing' 2 bedrooms for parents and one child, 3 bedrooms for parents and 2 children etc - not a free for all. I do not disagree that some will need social housing (but not a singular house) for life - but that social housing needs to be appropriate and to change as needs change.

Resources are limited and those in subsidised housing need to realise that they have a duty of responsibility to the rest of society as well. There is only a limited pot of money and it cannot forever be shared out (more and more) to those who believe that they should receive more than they need.

Completely agree!

TELL THAT TO THE 1% WHO WILL BE BETTER OF SOON!!

Voice-of-reality: There are one and two bedroom flats freely available and, even if this requires transference into the private renting market, the housing benefits that accompany ESSA and the likes more than cover those bills - if one looks for instance, at the rents of darlington, stockton, middlesbrough, bishop (to example but for)................
....
This very comment makes your entire post redundant. There's a massive shortage of properties to downsize to. An undeniable fact.

Willingly, their addresses are?

It does not make my post redundant at all. It shows that it is quite possible to be rehoused to more appropriate accommodation. There is not a shortage of smaller houses in the north-east; there are literally streets of empty terraces awaiting occupation.
There is not a requirement for councils to house people in council owned houses - merely to provide the means of accommodation - and to offer assistance in line with existing financial protocols.

Voice-of-reality wrote:
It does not make my post redundant at all. It shows that it is quite possible to be rehoused to more appropriate accommodation. There is not a shortage of smaller houses in the north-east; there are literally streets of empty terraces awaiting occupation.
There is not a requirement for councils to house people in council owned houses - merely to provide the means of accommodation - and to offer assistance in line with existing financial protocols.

It does, if you are in denial of the fundamental fact, why should anyone respect the rest of what you have to say.
Where are these streets full of empty houses? Go on, give me a clue.

Middlesbrough, Ferryhill and the West end of Newcastle spring immediately to mind. You might also care to look in the housing estates of Sunderland, as well as the outskirts of Consett and Stanley. Would you like me to continue?

In many countries there are little by way of benefits. In the UK they are too generous. People even have children and feint illnesses to maximise benefits. Just watch Saints and Scroungers. Then there is this case in Nottingham where a couple stand accused of killing their six children in an attempt to maximise benefits. I have never voted Tory but I'm sick of people who do nothing and expect everything. There needs to be more effort put into distinguishing the genuine case from those who see it as a career choice

As someone quoted on another website, benefits are for an emergency, they are not a lifestyle choice. Anyone who genuinely needs the extra space for medical needs I haven't a problem with.

Quite so, and in addition, those who do require that extra space (such as those, for instance on the higher-rate of DLA care) already receive extra money that is specifically intended to offset the higher living costs that they incur. The argument on this site has far more to do with those who are mobile and fit to work who continue to wish to live in houses that are too big for their needs (when the cost is not met by themselves) rather than those with disabilities.

im firmly for reviewing the huge benefit bill the country pays. but this is a very poorly thought out policy.

my mother has lived in her council house for 27 years. council houses arent just for people on the dole, theyre for low earners as well. since i moved out she lives there with my younger brother and theres now a spare room. shes been informed about the "bedroom tax" and has the option of moving or paying the extra. what people dont realise is that you have to return the property to its original condition before you can move. a council property is an assured tenancy. meaning you can live their for the rest of your life. when you start the tenancy youre encouraged to treat the property as your own and maintain and decorate it as if it was your own. its not the same as private housing where you expect the possibility of being asked to move by the owner. so she has spent a lot of money over the years on the property decorating and maintaining it. all this will have to be removed at great expense. she doesnt have the money to do this. so its not a case of paying the extra or moving. if you cant afford to return the property to standard your stuck there. my mother would certainly consider a smaller property but she has no choice but to try to find the extra. her work cant offer her any extra hours, but even if it did she would still have to pay extra because her earnings would of increased.

i think the over all idea is a good one, there are many people rattling around in 3 or 4 (or more) bedroom propertys on their own. and these houses are desperately needed for familys. but i think that there should of been more discretion left to the individual council to assess each case. there should also be a 1 room buffer zone. and you should only have to pay the bedroom tax if there are suitable propertys in your area. its a bit unfair to charge someone the tax because they havent moved when there isnt even somewhere for them to go!

Really do agree to most of the comments but what are they doing about all the people over 60 in 3 bed roomed houses living alone ? In our area there are more of these cases yet they are exempt ! I don understand that older people will have lived in those houses for a very long time, but come on they need to be made move or pay also ! As for other benefits like DLA I think it's called why are they given free cars with road tax and other things ? They are free to go out and get any car they like. It's all wrong those who really do need a car should be given a big standard car/van type with enough room for a wheel chair, not fancy cars pain by us !

Voice-of-reality wrote:
Middlesbrough, Ferryhill and the West end of Newcastle spring immediately to mind. You might also care to look in the housing estates of Sunderland, as well as the outskirts of Consett and Stanley. Would you like me to continue?

Thanks for the info. A quick look, for example, of affordable (£75-£85pw) 1 bed accomodation on the Rightmove website, where most private properties are advertised, shows 1 in Ferryhill, 4 in Consett and 3 in Stanley. In Newcastle there are 30 odd but most appear to be house share. Remember, 2/3rds of 600,000 affected by the tax are disabled so reasonable access is also a consideration in finding a suitable property.
I note also that most of these areas you mention suffer chronically from economic depravation. Maybe this Government intentions are to create ghettos for the disabled and unemployed, they do seem to be copying the US welfare example.

Bemused or bewildered wrote:
Really do agree to most of the comments but what are they doing about all the people over 60 in 3 bed roomed houses living alone ? In our area there are more of these cases yet they are exempt ! I don understand that older people will have lived in those houses for a very long time, but come on they need to be made move or pay also ! As for other benefits like DLA I think it's called why are they given free cars with road tax and other things ? They are free to go out and get any car they like. It's all wrong those who really do need a car should be given a big standard car/van type with enough room for a wheel chair, not fancy cars pain by us !

over 60s are actually exempt. and theyre the ones who are most likely to be holding up the chain. but as i said in my post, youre given an assured tenancy so they would of lived there for decades fully expecting to live out their life in that home. returning a home thats been lived in for decades to scratch isnt cheap, i doubt most pensioners would have the money to do that.

there was an old lady in her 80s on the end of our road, she lived in a four bedroom property on her own. been there 40 or 50 years. when she died the council where there nearly two months removing all her decorating, cupboards, carpets etc. how much would that of cost? i doubt she would of ever been able to afford to do it. probably why she never moved.

Bemused or bewildered wrote:
Really do agree to most of the comments but what are they doing about all the people over 60 in 3 bed roomed houses living alone ? In our area there are more of these cases yet they are exempt ! I don understand that older people will have lived in those houses for a very long time, but come on they need to be made move or pay also ! As for other benefits like DLA I think it's called why are they given free cars with road tax and other things ? They are free to go out and get any car they like. It's all wrong those who really do need a car should be given a big standard car/van type with enough room for a wheel chair, not fancy cars pain by us !

Oh dear. You are misinformed aren't you. People on DLA are not given free cars, they are leased and they also have to pay a deposit, £1000 minimum I think. Motobility, who run the scheme are mainly funded by charity. And, it's not just those on DLA who have blue badges, anyone disabled can apply for one.

Jonn wrote:

Bemused or bewildered wrote:
Really do agree to most of the comments but what are they doing about all the people over 60 in 3 bed roomed houses living alone ? In our area there are more of these cases yet they are exempt ! I don understand that older people will have lived in those houses for a very long time, but come on they need to be made move or pay also ! As for other benefits like DLA I think it's called why are they given free cars with road tax and other things ? They are free to go out and get any car they like. It's all wrong those who really do need a car should be given a big standard car/van type with enough room for a wheel chair, not fancy cars pain by us !

Oh dear. You are misinformed aren't you. People on DLA are not given free cars, they are leased and they also have to pay a deposit, £1000 minimum I think. Motobility, who run the scheme are mainly funded by charity. And, it's not just those on DLA who have blue badges, anyone disabled can apply for one.

DWP fund this charity I have been told !

All the rhetoric aside,the facts are that this policy is going to cost the tax payer a lot more in the long run as well as cause distress and poverty to those it effects. Any cursory look, (by anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of basic maths) into the the statistics and economics of the issue can see its not going to meet its aims and is certainly not cost effective. A nasty policy by a nasty and above all very, very, stupid and un-elected Tory party.

I was actually thinking of those who receive the higher care costs not the higher mobility costs - but we could widen the debate. As for the right move site - there are many more houses of the size available for rent - if one can be bothered to actually go and look. As for the exemption of the over 60s - I would cancel it. Further, given the need to house people there is an argument that the houses should be given to new tenants in a clean state rather than one that sees all previous improvements removed. I accept that some long term tenants may have spent handsomely on their properties - they could consider that to be a gift to those who use the house after them - a gift - like the one they have received from the state,

If these leftards feel so bad about it dip into your own pockets to cover the spare room subsidy.
No?
- Oh you want anyone else to pay for it. . .

Voice-of-reality wrote:
I was actually thinking of those who receive the higher care costs not the higher mobility costs - but we could widen the debate. As for the right move site - there are many more houses of the size available for rent - if one can be bothered to actually go and look. As for the exemption of the over 60s - I would cancel it. Further, given the need to house people there is an argument that the houses should be given to new tenants in a clean state rather than one that sees all previous improvements removed. I accept that some long term tenants may have spent handsomely on their properties - they could consider that to be a gift to those who use the house after them - a gift - like the one they have received from the state,

Totally agree ! If they are actually going to carry out this bedroom tax they need to do it correct ! No exemptions for age groups, if its not fair for a couple with 2 children to be in a 3 bedroom home,a person over 60 in the same size home clearly is even worse ! When you like in a rented home it should never be taken for granted ! Yes I live in a social housing home with my family, I work have 3 bedrooms and I don't mind at all paying the extra ! Just annoyed that age groups are exempt

You are the example that needs to be followed. You receive the assistance you need whilst also paying that which you should. Wishing you and your family all the best.

Bemused or bewildered wrote:

Jonn wrote:

Bemused or bewildered wrote:
Really do agree to most of the comments but what are they doing about all the people over 60 in 3 bed roomed houses living alone ? In our area there are more of these cases yet they are exempt ! I don understand that older people will have lived in those houses for a very long time, but come on they need to be made move or pay also ! As for other benefits like DLA I think it's called why are they given free cars with road tax and other things ? They are free to go out and get any car they like. It's all wrong those who really do need a car should be given a big standard car/van type with enough room for a wheel chair, not fancy cars pain by us !

Oh dear. You are misinformed aren't you. People on DLA are not given free cars, they are leased and they also have to pay a deposit, £1000 minimum I think. Motobility, who run the scheme are mainly funded by charity. And, it's not just those on DLA who have blue badges, anyone disabled can apply for one.

DWP fund this charity I have been told !

Well, whoever told you wasn't a very reliable source. Most of the Motobility Scheme funding comes from charity work, not the DWP.

Nevertheless, the higher rate of mobility allowance comes from the government and the administration of blue badges (accepted in a different capacity) comes from councils - once again, therefore, there is a cost to the taxpayer. I also was not aware that having a car required one to have an extra bedroom.

spragger wrote:
If these leftards feel so bad about it dip into your own pockets to cover the spare room subsidy.
No?
- Oh you want anyone else to pay for it. . .

Why are you bringing 'left' into the debate? If you don't agree with someones opinion, do you automatically assume they are left wing? Sounds a bit shallow to me.

Oh look. It's a bunch of plebs getting annoyed because they aren't being given stuff for free anymore for lying on their backs.

Your idol protests will not work. Please return to your homes and get a job.

Perhaps you wouldn't be affected by this now if you tried a bit harder in life. Hmm?

mmmmcake wrote:
Oh look. It's a bunch of plebs getting annoyed because they aren't being given stuff for free anymore for lying on their backs.

Your idol protests will not work. Please return to your homes and get a job.

Perhaps you wouldn't be affected by this now if you tried a bit harder in life. Hmm?

Take it you are one of the Many who think all on Benefits are Druggies , Alcoholics or just can't be Bothered to Work . I Worked from the age of Fourteen until Fifty then I had a Stroke and became Epileptic and had to Stop Working . My Council have Two one Bedroom Flats I Could Downsize into both Twenty miles away . ie out of my Area away from my Friends who assist me . But because I love my Dogs I will try and Stay here as if my Dogs Disturb other Residents of the Flats they will have to go , So I would Proberly end my Life to which you would no Doubt say Good Ridance to Scum .

Jonn wrote:

Bemused or bewildered wrote:

Jonn wrote:

Bemused or bewildered wrote:
Really do agree to most of the comments but what are they doing about all the people over 60 in 3 bed roomed houses living alone ? In our area there are more of these cases yet they are exempt ! I don understand that older people will have lived in those houses for a very long time, but come on they need to be made move or pay also ! As for other benefits like DLA I think it's called why are they given free cars with road tax and other things ? They are free to go out and get any car they like. It's all wrong those who really do need a car should be given a big standard car/van type with enough room for a wheel chair, not fancy cars pain by us !

Oh dear. You are misinformed aren't you. People on DLA are not given free cars, they are leased and they also have to pay a deposit, £1000 minimum I think. Motobility, who run the scheme are mainly funded by charity. And, it's not just those on DLA who have blue badges, anyone disabled can apply for one.

DWP fund this charity I have been told !

Well, whoever told you wasn't a very reliable source. Most of the Motobility Scheme funding comes from charity work, not the DWP.

Well if you actually look into it the DWP actually part fund this and are clamping down on misuse ! Stopping them getting £35,000 BMW !
Alcoholics and drug users also get the higher rate and can get a car !

Customers choose a new car every three or five years with insurance, road tax, servicing, tyres and breakdown cover all included in a single monthly payment. This payment is made automatically by the Department for Work and Pensions to Motability Operations under the authority of a form CP50 signed by the hirer.

Anyway as this thread is not about this I will leave it there John ! Hope you don't loose your DLA car

Jonn wrote:

Bemused or bewildered wrote:
Really do agree to most of the comments but what are they doing about all the people over 60 in 3 bed roomed houses living alone ? In our area there are more of these cases yet they are exempt ! I don understand that older people will have lived in those houses for a very long time, but come on they need to be made move or pay also ! As for other benefits like DLA I think it's called why are they given free cars with road tax and other things ? They are free to go out and get any car they like. It's all wrong those who really do need a car should be given a big standard car/van type with enough room for a wheel chair, not fancy cars pain by us !

Oh dear. You are misinformed aren't you. People on DLA are not given free cars, they are leased and they also have to pay a deposit, £1000 minimum I think. Motobility, who run the scheme are mainly funded by charity. And, it's not just those on DLA who have blue badges, anyone disabled can apply for one.

Actually, if you check it iut, motorbility is only allowed if you are on the highest rate of DLA. And It says nothing about a deposit. That is no longer true.

As with all benefits (including social housing which is subsidised at great expense by taxpayers) the system is unsustainable. Im no Tory, but this government has at least tried to readdress the runaway unaffordable benefits system and this so called tax is a step in the right direction. This happens in other countries and makes the supply of social housing fairer for tennants and cheaper for taxpayers. As some have pointed out, the way it has been put in place is questionable exempting the over 60's of which there are hundreds of thousands living alone in 3 bedroom rents. A starting point has to be made somewhere though and in time this will be seen as a fair way to allocate housing once the initial resistance is overcome. Taxpayers to have to pay for things they dont want to as well!

Bemused or bewildered wrote:

Jonn wrote:

Bemused or bewildered wrote:

Jonn wrote:

Bemused or bewildered wrote:
Really do agree to most of the comments but what are they doing about all the people over 60 in 3 bed roomed houses living alone ? In our area there are more of these cases yet they are exempt ! I don understand that older people will have lived in those houses for a very long time, but come on they need to be made move or pay also ! As for other benefits like DLA I think it's called why are they given free cars with road tax and other things ? They are free to go out and get any car they like. It's all wrong those who really do need a car should be given a big standard car/van type with enough room for a wheel chair, not fancy cars pain by us !

Oh dear. You are misinformed aren't you. People on DLA are not given free cars, they are leased and they also have to pay a deposit, £1000 minimum I think. Motobility, who run the scheme are mainly funded by charity. And, it's not just those on DLA who have blue badges, anyone disabled can apply for one.

DWP fund this charity I have been told !

Well, whoever told you wasn't a very reliable source. Most of the Motobility Scheme funding comes from charity work, not the DWP.

Well if you actually look into it the DWP actually part fund this and are clamping down on misuse ! Stopping them getting £35,000 BMW !
Alcoholics and drug users also get the higher rate and can get a car !

Customers choose a new car every three or five years with insurance, road tax, servicing, tyres and breakdown cover all included in a single monthly payment. This payment is made automatically by the Department for Work and Pensions to Motability Operations under the authority of a form CP50 signed by the hirer.

Anyway as this thread is not about this I will leave it there John ! Hope you don't loose your DLA car

I did say, if you look, that the Motobility Scheme is MAINLY funded by charity, I didn't say the DWP don't contribute anything.
To say alcoholics and drug addicts can get cars is a really stupid claim to make.
Yes, you DO need to pay a deposit.
I don't claim DLA and I don't have a car.

Mobility cars are not free. They are for disabled people who can’t manage without; People like my late father who worked 60 years then got cancer and couldn't walk. He paid his own way his whole life.

Council houses are not exclusively for the unemployed. They are also for people on low incomes. That makes up quite a lot of the population you know, since nowadays for example, women can't afford to work due to the cost of childcare and losing child tax credits. So they end up having to work part time. Which is fortunate (irony alert) since you can only GET part time work these days on the minimum wage or a zero hours contract. My own wages haven’t' gone up in the last five years... but my bills certainly have. And before you idiots start.... No I don't get ANY benefits, and I NEVER have been unemployed.

Private rental is MORE expensive than a council house and so by moving people out of council houses into private rented accommodation, you cost the tax payer MORE, not saving ANYTHING.

There are also rules about where you can house people. So that you (at least for now) can't bin poor families into doss houses and sh1t holes and abandon them to their fate.

Also folks, you are talking about families who have disabled kids with adapted homes, so property must be disabled friendly, children in schools who you would like to see turned out and moved about randomly without a care in the worked for what you do to their education. Divorced parents who have a child stay with them at weekends. And after all, these people are NOT the people who are tax avoiding or rigging the Libor rate or destroying the global economy.

BTW please note MPs voted themselves an increase in the second home allowance this week. An increase which was more then you get for JSA to live in your council house. Double standards anyone??

What is wrong with you people!!!?? You have been brain washed into despising each other and are completely missing the real villains! The villains sat in there penthouse offices rubbing their greedy hands together and LAUGHING at you attacking each other. Right now they are cracking open another bottle of champers and toasting the plebs for ripping each other to shreds!!

I Despair of you all!!!!

Jadams:BTW please note MPs voted themselves an increase in the second home allowance this week. An increase which was more then you get for JSA to live in your council house. Double standards anyone??............
.......

Yes, awarded themselves £100 pw more apparently, absolute hypocrisy of the highest order. I came across this outrage the other day. It's not being reported at all in the mainstream media. Media cover up?
Here we are, bickering amongst ourselves when the biggest thieves of tax payers money are the Government, Banks and Corporates.

Jonn wrote:
Jadams:BTW please note MPs voted themselves an increase in the second home allowance this week. An increase which was more then you get for JSA to live in your council house. Double standards anyone??............

.......

Yes, awarded themselves £100 pw more apparently, absolute hypocrisy of the highest order. I came across this outrage the other day. It's not being reported at all in the mainstream media. Media cover up?
Here we are, bickering amongst ourselves when the biggest thieves of tax payers money are the Government, Banks and Corporates.

MPs with double standards, bankers who ruin the economy and expect everyone else to pick up the tab, benefit scroungers who have no intention of working, councillors whose prime motivation is to look after themselves.

Yes this country is in one big mess

Jadams wrote:
Mobility cars are not free. They are for disabled people who can’t manage without; People like my late father who worked 60 years then got cancer and couldn't walk. He paid his own way his whole life.

Council houses are not exclusively for the unemployed. They are also for people on low incomes. That makes up quite a lot of the population you know, since nowadays for example, women can't afford to work due to the cost of childcare and losing child tax credits. So they end up having to work part time. Which is fortunate (irony alert) since you can only GET part time work these days on the minimum wage or a zero hours contract. My own wages haven’t' gone up in the last five years... but my bills certainly have. And before you idiots start.... No I don't get ANY benefits, and I NEVER have been unemployed.

Private rental is MORE expensive than a council house and so by moving people out of council houses into private rented accommodation, you cost the tax payer MORE, not saving ANYTHING.

There are also rules about where you can house people. So that you (at least for now) can't bin poor families into doss houses and sh1t holes and abandon them to their fate.

Also folks, you are talking about families who have disabled kids with adapted homes, so property must be disabled friendly, children in schools who you would like to see turned out and moved about randomly without a care in the worked for what you do to their education. Divorced parents who have a child stay with them at weekends. And after all, these people are NOT the people who are tax avoiding or rigging the Libor rate or destroying the global economy.

BTW please note MPs voted themselves an increase in the second home allowance this week. An increase which was more then you get for JSA to live in your council house. Double standards anyone??

What is wrong with you people!!!?? You have been brain washed into despising each other and are completely missing the real villains! The villains sat in there penthouse offices rubbing their greedy hands together and LAUGHING at you attacking each other. Right now they are cracking open another bottle of champers and toasting the plebs for ripping each other to shreds!!

I Despair of you all!!!!

Nail hit firmly and squarely on the head, couldn't agree more.

Jadams wrote:
Mobility cars are not free. They are for disabled people who can’t manage without; People like my late father who worked 60 years then got cancer and couldn't walk. He paid his own way his whole life. Council houses are not exclusively for the unemployed. They are also for people on low incomes. That makes up quite a lot of the population you know, since nowadays for example, women can't afford to work due to the cost of childcare and losing child tax credits. So they end up having to work part time. Which is fortunate (irony alert) since you can only GET part time work these days on the minimum wage or a zero hours contract. My own wages haven’t' gone up in the last five years... but my bills certainly have. And before you idiots start.... No I don't get ANY benefits, and I NEVER have been unemployed. Private rental is MORE expensive than a council house and so by moving people out of council houses into private rented accommodation, you cost the tax payer MORE, not saving ANYTHING. There are also rules about where you can house people. So that you (at least for now) can't bin poor families into doss houses and sh1t holes and abandon them to their fate. Also folks, you are talking about families who have disabled kids with adapted homes, so property must be disabled friendly, children in schools who you would like to see turned out and moved about randomly without a care in the worked for what you do to their education. Divorced parents who have a child stay with them at weekends. And after all, these people are NOT the people who are tax avoiding or rigging the Libor rate or destroying the global economy. BTW please note MPs voted themselves an increase in the second home allowance this week. An increase which was more then you get for JSA to live in your council house. Double standards anyone?? What is wrong with you people!!!?? You have been brain washed into despising each other and are completely missing the real villains! The villains sat in there penthouse offices rubbing their greedy hands together and LAUGHING at you attacking each other. Right now they are cracking open another bottle of champers and toasting the plebs for ripping each other to shreds!! I Despair of you all!!!!

Mobility cars are not free, no, you are quite right in your nearly new car you have to pay for the petrol but you get the tax, insurance and breakdown cover thrown in as well

Voice-of-reality wrote:
The requirements of all families change over time. As the family grows one needs more rooms and once 'they have flown the nest' fewer rooms are required. In the private sector this results in people moving up the housing ladder and thereafter downsizing. Why should it be any different with public sector housing? Those tenants who, quite reasonably, ask for larger houses when their families grown should also have the common decency to ask to be downsized when their families 'fly the nest' so that others may benefit.

There are one and two bedroom flats freely available and, even if this requires transference into the private renting market, the housing benefits that accompany ESSA and the likes more than cover those bills - if one looks for instance, at the rents of darlington, stockton, middlesbrough, bishop (to example but for).

If people wish to live in larger houses than that which they need - they should pay for it. If I choose to have a five bedroom house - whilst single - I have to pay extra council tax, extra water rates and more of a mortgage. It is my choice. If I continue to live in such a houses when retired it is my choice to spend the extra money. In the same way, if the public housing tenant wishes to be in a larger house than that which they need - they should pay for it - rather than expecting another hand-out. Indeed, by moving to a smaller house many tenants will save money through lower heating costs etc (just as their private sector/mortgage counterparts do when they downsize).

This is not, as some posts have suggested a tax, neither is it an attack on the poor. It is, however, a realisation that in providing social housing it needs to be 'appropriate housing' 2 bedrooms for parents and one child, 3 bedrooms for parents and 2 children etc - not a free for all. I do not disagree that some will need social housing (but not a singular house) for life - but that social housing needs to be appropriate and to change as needs change.

Resources are limited and those in subsidised housing need to realise that they have a duty of responsibility to the rest of society as well. There is only a limited pot of money and it cannot forever be shared out (more and more) to those who believe that they should receive more than they need.

Hear! Hear! An excellent post which is both sensible & informative. Although maybe local councils should be given more planning control etc, so that they can build more social housing, but also build more affordable homes to buy.
The price of new build & recently built homes on new estates is crazy in comparison to the average NE annual salary.