Devizes tenants face bedroom tax (From The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald)

Looks like Wiltshire Council & their "Social Landlords" are in a pickle here as their policy (previously) on house size for which social tenants could bid for wasn't dependant on the size of the property, so now the people they have placed will be penalised. Whats worse is the scenario of a single parent with 15 year old male twins who currently share a 3 bedroom house whereby they all have a seperate bedroom. The bedroom tax decrees same sex children over 10 but under 16 have to share a bedroom otherwise they pay the "spare" bedroom tax penalty off their housing benefits. So move them into a 2 bed property then the following year they'll need a 3 bed again. But if your kids are a male and a female over ten then they qualify for seperate bedrooms, discrimination or what. Where is this government coming from they definately don't live in the real world, with the waiting lists as they are, do we really need to be moving people hither and thither and back again so they don't lose benefits? I thought they wanted to improve infrastructure and build more houses to get the economy moving, but as usual with the Tories its look for a weak scapegoat: the poor, the uneducated (not all) , the vunerable and adopt a policy that is unworkable, will stretch even further local authority resourses whilst cutting their grants, while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This governments policies resemble more and more those of the 3rd Reich. Don't pick me up on the typos, arsehole from Calne.

Our charity is very concerned about how this 'bedroom tax' as well as other changes within the welfare reform are going to affect unpaid carers as well as other members of the community.

We're holding a Question Time event with a panel consisting of a local MP, DWP, Carers Trust, Wiltshire CAB and a local solicitor to debate how these changes are going to affect people:

http://carersrightsq
uestiontime.eventbri
te.co.uk/?ebtv=C#

In response to 'ace reporter' - the relationship between dwelling size and household size is not new. This is called the 'Bedroom Standard' and is already applied (and was applied under the previous Government) when determining Housing Benefit payments in the Private Sector via the Local Housing Allowance scheme. The proposed approach will therefore align households in the social sector to similar income level households housed in the private sector. This seems fair and reasonable.

When referring to Waiting Lists it is important to recognise that anyone can apply to go on the list whether in need or not, and in Wiltshire 45% of households on the Waiting List are not statutorily defined as falling within a 'Reasonable Preference' category and therefore being in need (as set out in s.167(2) of the 1996 Act, rationalised in the Homelessness Act 2002,and further refined by the Housing Act 2004).

The implementation of the proposal does not impact upon the wider issues which influence whether or not homes and infrastructure is provided; it is an attempt to utilise existing social housing stock efficiently to make sure as many households as possible can be housed appropriately, thus ensuring an appropriate distribution of scarce public funds. Under occupation of social housing is acknowledged by most local authorities to be a matter that needs to be addressed (and this was the case under the previous Government) and most have incentive schemes which seek to reduce under occupation of social housing stock. Clearly, resources are finite and efficiency savings must be made. Rather than just burying their head in the sand so they can remain popular, this Government is trying to do something about these issues.

Private sector occupants (rented and owner occupier) are all having to make cuts to their spending to enable them to remain housed in tough economic times where jobs have been lost and incomes cut; there is no reason to expect social sector housing not to be subject to efficiency savings too, particularly as it is subsidised by public money. Short of becoming a Communist State (which, incidently, tends to place significant restrictions on personal liberty and still has a rich poor divide in reality) there will always be people with money and with less money; but thank goodness there are all those in the middle who pay the taxes that provide the public funding to provide a safety net for all of us in times of need. However, the net can only be stretched so far.

The issues referred to about households having to move one year from the next fail to reflect that households can either cover the cost of living in a home assessed to be larger than their needs or seek alternative smaller accommodation in either the social or private sector (the latter also with the assistance of Housing Benefit where assessed to be appropriate) - they are not forced to move, but like households across all sectors (private too) will find themselves having to fill the financial gap that their reduced income results in. Once the system is in place and households move, or not as they see fit, into appropriately sized accommodation it will settle into place and people will not have a need to move backwards and forwards as they will have been correctly housed in the first place. it will take time to filter through but it has to start somewhere as in these harsh economic times public money must be spent prudently if the maximum number of households are to be helped. The public purse is not bottomless.

The point raised about incorrect allocation of households in the first place to dwellings larger than required is an interesting one, and perhaps reflects local authorities' insistence when seeking contributions of new build social homes from developers upon being provided with disproportionately greater numbers of larger dwellings than required. Traditionally developer proposals which provide high levels of single bedroom affordable homes are disliked by local authorities and they press for larger family homes regardless of whether numerically backlog housing requirements are most significantly for 1 bedroom homes. As such additions to the social housing stock in the last few years are unlikely to have made an adequate provision of smaller dwellings, particularly in places like Devizes where there have been significant new build additions.