Housing Benefit Changes Affecting The Under 35's

[developer]

I don't do political threads but I wonder what the panel thinks about this.

Amongst a raft of recent housing benefit changes the government has declared that anyone under 35 (was 25) claiming housing benefit can only receive what is known as the shared room rate, currently £55.00/week in Birmingham.

Controversially, and the key point of the thread is that they have applied it to existing tenants, generally living in one bed flats.

As an example, I've got a guy who's been renting a one bed flat from me since 2005. He's an OK guy who tries to get work but has found it difficult.

His rent has been paid by the DSS at £95.00/week for the last few years and that's the market rate for the area.

From April he will only qualify for the under 35 shared room rate of £55.00/week - this means there will be a £40.00/week shortfall which he will obviously be unable to meet on his £130.00/fortnight Job Seekers Allowance.

In consequence, he will have to downgrade to shared accommodation, typically a bedsit with shared bathroom/kitchen and I will lose him, a good tenant. It's not financially practical for me to leave him there at £55 when I can get £100 from a working/paying tenant

Remember, this applies to any single person under 35, claiming housing benefit (though there are exceptions for disability, care etc.)

Shelter are advising affected people to begin to look for cheaper accommodation (read bedsit), which will be closer to the bottom of the market, where the more unscrupulous landlords are.

I accept there are some who won't agree with people on benefits regardless, however, this change is going to cause hardship to under 35's, many of whom are already vulnerable.

What do the panel think?

 

[Dieselman]

It could be argued that sharing accommodation if it is being paid for by taxpayers is a reasonable thing to do.

I suspect that many people lived in shared accommodation when first working, I did.

 

[davidjpowell]

On the face of it unfair to apply to existing claimants. I can understand the theory behind it though.

I don't have a problem with the principle, but having seen some of the bottom end of the market, that is a concern. Would help if the gubberment had tightened up rules on that end, although I suspect that in reality they would ignore the new rules as they do the old rules.

ETA Answer is for your known tenant to find two like minded individuals, rent a 3 bed flat/house and avoid bedsits.£45 quid a week not much though - hopefully that changes with rents in the area.

 

[jay1983]

The whole point of the welfare state was to help the most vulnerable in society.
Unfortunately under labour this was abused and as a consequence we had immigrants renting mansions for £12k a month because landlords could charge what they wanted.
Now the coalition are trying to close these loopholes but as usual it's the honest people in society (like you and your tenant) who suffer.
I bet 90% of people on here can name a handful of people who they no are fiddling the benefits system. It really angers me as I work an average of 60 hours per week to provide for a family of 6. I could take the easy way out but choose not to, as I believe the next generation need to realise you get nothing for free in this world.

 

[Gollom]

My son has two boys (13 and 8) and for all sorts of reasons, (all of them the right ones) their mother has custody. This new ruling means that having them to stay at weekends in a bedsit is pretty impractical.

The boys - Unlikely to stay with their dads at weekends which will upset them greatly
The mother - Has them ALL the time. This is not a problem for her, but a big worry for her is concern about the boys relationshp with their dad.
My son - Pretty much loses all ways!

I take the point abouts costs etc. and do not for one minute pretend to know the answer.

Him getting off his backside and gaining employment is of course the answer, but I suspect that is somewhat easier said then done in todays climate

 

[neilrr]

As an example, I've got a guy who's been renting a one bed flat from me since 2005. He's an OK guy who tries to get work but has found it difficult.

Has he been on benefits & not had a job for 7 or 8 years?

 

[Red C220]

I think retrospective application is unreasonable, but I agree in principle with the idea of cutting costs an how they go about it.

How much money will this change save annually? Are there any figures?

I have a personal bugbear that could easily be closed by the way we administer VAT. Carousel fraud, see the following:-

Missing trader fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we adopted the American System where only the end user pays sales tax, we would immediately save circa £10 Billion a year, every year.

Really, it isn't brain surgery, remove the nonsence of business to business transactions involving sales tax.

 

[developer]

Has he been on benefits & not had a job for 7 or 8 years?

No, when he came to me he was working and he has worked on and off during the time he's been with me, but not for a few years.

However he's a bit, er, eccentric and is his own worst enemy when it comes to interviews etc.

 

[Red C220]

No, when he came to me he was working and he has worked on and off during the time he's been with me, but not for a few years.

However he's a bit, er, eccentric and is his own worst enemy when it comes to interviews etc.

Sounds like an Aspergers sufferer or something. They often come accross as eccentric.

 

[markjay]

The whole point of the welfare state was to help the most vulnerable in society....

I agree with this.

I think that the 'single under 35's' are probably the more resilient of the vulnerable?

Surely able-bodied single young men or women are best suited for finding paid employment - even if it is a very low skills one, or night shifts, etc. After all we now have minimum wages so any job really will easily make up for the shortfall - and a single young person can take almost any job, unlike people with commitments or handicaps. So I think it makes sense to start with reducing benefits to the strongest population.

I am not advocating removal of social welfare in general, but if we agree that state welfare should be cut due to the debt, then cutting it for the single under 35's first is probably far more sensible than starting with families / single parents / old people / disabled etc?

So all in all I think this is not an unreasonable measure.

 

[davidjpowell]

I think retrospective application is unreasonable, but I agree in principle with the idea of cutting costs an how they go about it.

How much money will this change save annually? Are there any figures?

I have a personal bugbear that could easily be closed by the way we administer VAT. Carousel fraud, see the following:-

Missing trader fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we adopted the American System where only the end user pays sales tax, we would immediately save circa £10 Billion a year, every year.

Really, it isn't brain surgery, remove the nonsence of business to business transactions involving sales tax.

And would it not fit in with the government line of cutting red tape for business.

 

[Rory]

ETA Answer is for your known tenant to find two like minded individuals, rent a 3 bed flat/house and avoid bedsits.£45 quid a week not much though - hopefully that changes with rents in the area.

In most areas that's not going to be enough to get a 3 bed place.

 

[markjay]

I think retrospective application is unreasonable, but I agree in principle with the idea of cutting costs an how they go about it.

How much money will this change save annually? Are there any figures?

I have a personal bugbear that could easily be closed by the way we administer VAT. Carousel fraud, see the following:-

Missing trader fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we adopted the American System where only the end user pays sales tax, we would immediately save circa £10 Billion a year, every year.

Really, it isn't brain surgery, remove the nonsence of business to business transactions involving sales tax.

Where would the £10b saving come from...? or is this the estimate of how much is lost every year with the current system due to fraud?

 

[balge]

Property to rent in Doncaster, South Yorkshire

not even in Donny...

 

[Red C220]

And would it not fit in with the government line of cutting red tape for business.

Well you'd like to think so. I do wonder how many government departments and quangos it would require to organsie a "red tape cutting" policy though.

 

[Red C220]

Where would the £10b saving come from...? or is this the estimate of how much is lost every year with the current system due to fraud?

It's currently what is lost in fraudulent payments.

i.e. HMRC pay out the vat to one company but are unable to claim it from the source, they generally dissapear with the cash.

A european court ruling meant they were not allowed to withold the refund despite knowing fraud had occured further back dow the transaction line.

Read the link in the post it explains it in more detail and revolves mostly around tax free exports within the EU and is mostly undertaken using container quantities of mobile phones.

 

[developer]

The major change is the sharing aspect - people who have rented one bed flats with their own kitchen and bathroom (basics for most of us) will end up sharing a bathroom with strangers - not pleasant, particularly for women.

Don't forget, we're not talking students here - 35's are mature adults.

 

[Red C220]

Do they treat couples differently or are you treated as a pair of individuals?

 

[renault12ts]

Do they treat couples differently or are you treated as a pair of individuals?

A couple, both under 35, would each receive £55, so the problem would go away...I presume.

 

[developer]

Do they treat couples differently or are you treated as a pair of individuals?

I believe couples are different, though I've not studied the detail as I've (luckily) only got the one guy affected.

It's a financial consideration for me, but for him it's a much more far reaching social issue.