disabled will NOT be exempt from 'bedroom tax'

I think an admission that it is not the fault of the people in council houses that there aren't enough to go round would help. Why should they suffer because of government incompetence in the past?

We need more small and family sized council houses. Whose responsibility is it to provide council housing? Why aren't they doing their job properly?

Not easy questions to answer, I know, but they do lie at the crux of the problem.

We had many lodgers, all strangers, some males, some females, youngsters and adults- and always shared the only bathroom. No problem with this for most people. I said suitable lodgers, and with support - and just one of several choices. Not everyone has an obsession about not sharing a bathroom, really.

Gardens can make all the difference between a place to live and a home, and provide somewhere for children to play, and adults to grow something of their own, sit outside, have a barbecue. High rise flats are being replaced all ove the UK with lower density housing and green spaces.

http://www.housingeurope.eu/publication/social-housing-country-profiles/social-housing-in/fr

I have lived in six rural areas of France. There were many social housing projects with gardens, where the tenants grew their own fruit and vegetables. I live in a flat which means I am free to lock it up and travel.

I think few single people or couples would be happy to take in a complete stranger as a lodger, especially as there would probably be only one bathroom. I know I wouldn't and neither would any of the people I have asked.
Surely people who need social housing are just as entitled to their privacy as homeowners?

I can't see what grounds there are for argument about this subject. Apparently, we all agree that there should be more properties built or otherwise acquired by the state, especially smaller properties, and that those who wished to move into them should be encouraged to do so, but not forced.
I don't think there is a single member who is oblivious to the plight of the homeless and many suggestions have been made about possible ways to ameliorate their situation which do not entail forcing other people into misery. Could we see some comments on these suggestions, please?

Agreed janeaisnworth - in fact most families in Switzerland live in very pleasant flats, and very happily so. When asked why they don't buy, they say they want to enjoy their free time, and not bother with maintenance, garden, etc.

I was talking, as you know, about those awful estates in the 'banlieues' (the French word for suburb... which has the opposite meaning though to the UK), without green areas and other infrastructure, which are a nightmare for so many- but the only 'choice' for those who need subsidised housing. Same in Germany, same anywhere in Europe. I truly think it is wonderful that the UK is the only country that provides homes with gardens for families in need... but as they are in short supply, we should try and get others in subsidized housing who no longer need them to make positive and creative choices. The bedroom tax being one of many, if other options are refused.

CHOICE not force!

I don't think there is anything wrong with downsizing when your children have left or being forced to live outside London.
When I got made redundant I sold my London home and joined my father in Birmingham.
The value of the home is a lot less but the physical size is more.
I suppose I could have stayed in London but I would have been living at a lower standard as all my capital would have been tied up in the house.
Also I moved for family reasons.
Some people who I worked with who have now retired have moved about 50 miles out of London for a similar reason.
Most live near a main line station so they can get in to London when they want but the cost of the house is less than half of the one they had in London.

Frank

Granjura You wrote: "anywhere in Europe the only subsidised housing is high rise flats - which is of course dreadful"
We lived in a high-rise flat in Hongkong for 8 years and there is nothing wrong with living in a flat per se.
My children lived there when they were small, and they have grown up, on the whole, to be reasonably well-balanced individuals.
Flats do not have to be horrid places to live. Ours was reasonably spacious (1500 sq ft) with a small balcony where I had plants and the children played. Downstairs there was a communal playground, sports facilities, and an ornamental garden which helped to foster a spirit of neighbourliness.
By contrast in the UK there are many dismal estates which comprise mainly houses and which are poorly designed, and lack facilities.
I realise this is a distraction from the central argument, for which I apologise, but I wanted to point out that high-rise is not necessarily bad - it is providing comfortable, well-designed homes in a pleasant environment where a sense of community can develop that is important - surely that is not beyond us?

Frank wants them forcing out, granjura.

If you re-read my posts, you will find I've never mentioned forcing anybody out - but a building programme of suitable smaller flats/bungalows, with communal area and garden and proper infrastructure, where groups of people who've raised families together in a community could move, together, if this is what they want. There is currently no suitable alternative, smaller accommodation, we've established that (and for so many reasons.. the sale of council houses being just one of them). This combined with other humane CHOICES as an alternative to the 'bedroom tax', like taking a SUITABLE lodger, with support, for instance.

People with special needs and handicap should of course be assessed individually - and not exempt as a blanket exemption. Many forms of handicap are mild and not necessarily requiring an exemption.

Several have mentioned a two tier nation - but I can assure you the UK is a multi-tier nation... and the needs of the most in need, children in poor families in totally unsuitable accom is right down there, under someone else's shoe. Many house owners cannot afford a decent car, on tick or otherwise, because they have to spend every penny on maintenance and cost of their home... nor holidays abroad, etc. Many house owners are poor because they own their own homes ...

Such sweeping assumptions made about these 'undeserving' local authority tenants with their gardens and new cars. Many jobs come with a car, so unless you've audited their household accounts, don't assume the car is theirs or owned outright. And anyway, if a family or a couple budget their money and pay their rent, why shoudn't they buy a car? It's probably on HP so they won't own it for some time. What's wrong with having a garden? A place for relaxation, grow your own veg, sit in the sushine and read, instead of having to sit on the front doorstep like they did in the days when a car was rarely seen on the street.

Councils have a target of 6 weeks maximum for families in B and Bs, and most achieve this but those who have stayed longer are usually in hotels and can stay indoors, not walk the streets. The recent increase in families needing rehousing has occured because of the housing benefit cap. They can't stay in inner London where rents are astronomical, even if they have always lived there. Compares with the young families who can't get an affordable house in tourist areas because of the affluent people who have bought second homes. Governments have dallied too long about this, when they can foresee demand increasing.

Let's not generalise from particular anomalies. We all know about abuse of any system, whether that be benefits or taxes. The people who haven't perpetrated these abuses are being blamed for being poor, or for having the temerity to rise above their station.

The majority of families do get their house with garden in a reaonable time, with no harm done to anyone. The ones who don't need extra support, but they don't need a couple who now have no children at home being forced out to make way. That's harmful, too, being forced out of your home. Some compassion, please!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_France

Frank Once the houses were built, the maintenance and administration of them was covered by the rental income. Had the local authorities been allowed to use the money generated by house sales in the construction of more and more suitable ones, the housing stock would now be far greater than it is, but that was expressly forbidden so as to create a population of houseowners - an attempt at social engineering by force which did not work.

The money spent on building them was indeed invested - in providing homes. Financial returns are not the only things of value.

They are in this report, Granjura They do figure in statistics, and people do care.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/families-in-bed-and-breakfast-accommodation-for-more-than-6-weeks

But forcing other people out of their established homes, whoever and wherever they are, is not the answer. Persuasion could be, but it has to be subtle, not applied with a authoritarian sledgehammer, or you create a different army of the dispossessed. Policies already allow for that persuasion, as below:-

"The guidance encourages councils to adopt a modern measure of overcrowding and encourages them to give appropriate priority to tenants who want to downsize, helping them move to smaller, more manageable properties and freeing up precious social housing for crowded families."

"4.8 The Secretary of State takes the view that the bedroom standard is an appropriate measure of overcrowding for allocation purposes, and recommends that all housing authorities should adopt this as a minimum. The bedroom standard allocates a separate bedroom to each:
married or cohabiting couple
adult aged 21 years or more
pair of adolescents aged 10-20 years of the same sex
pair of children aged under 10 years regardless of sex "

"4.23 Social tenants affected by the under-occupation measure may choose to move to more suitably sized accommodation in the private rented sector. One way to encourage tenants to consider this option might be to ensure they are given some degree of preference for an allocation if they apply for a new social tenancy at a later date. "

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5918/2171391.pdf

Elegran

The houses are being subsidised.
If they were sold for say an average of £100,000 the money could be invested at say 2% so from that point of view the council is losing £100 per month per house.
Councils are generally in debt so money is being borrowed at a higher rate.

Frank

Granjura I came across several if these B&B families when I worked for Children's Services. They would drop their school age children at school then were not allowed back until after the school day ended. So mums and dads with younger children, babies, walked the streets, tried to find drop in centres, sat in cafes as long as they could get away with it over a cup of tea. I think the bedsit ones were better off. It was the B&B ones who were truly the bottom of the pile.

To which you need to add the cost of families in bedsits and b&bs, etc- now it would be possible to find the monetary figures - but the rest of the cost, emotional, educational, long-term ??? How do you put a figure on that? Look at the fracture in Scottish society in some towns ...

If we are going to cite the John Cleese Hierarchy (and it was brilliant)... could you tell me where you put those families in bedsits, etc??? They don't even figure... they are below the picture, unseen - until they commit crime - and by then it is too late.

Where, where are they?

For those who are worried about the money being spent on subsidising local authority housing:-

Average annual rent of a council house in Scotland - £2425
Average maintenance and admin cost per unit - £1595

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/01/31113211/1

Your own local authority probably publishes similar figures.

I was just trying to complete the trilogy as it were...remember the John Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett sketch..'I look down on him.....I look up to him'?

Now that is just ridiculous, and you of course know this.

The UK is unique in providing families with council houses with gardens- anywhere in Europe the only subsidised housing is high rise flats - which is of course dreadful - so well done UK. But then these houses should be allocated on needs basis, and not for life - as others families will need them.

Whenever i had students or assistant/e/s living with us in the UK, they were totally amazed that families with financial 'limits' were allocated 'proper' houses with gardens- as this is unheard of anywhere else in Europe.

Wonderful - but these houses should be for families, not singles or older couples- as the damage to children growing up in bedsits and unsuitable accommodation is lasting and devastating. I suppose this should have been made clear right from the start, so people would know from the off that the house allocated was not for life, but for family life.

I was being sarcastic, Aka, because of the attitude of some posters to these tenants.

And perhaps homeless families should do the same and courtesy to people in large council houses with BMWs in the drive who pay 40% tax. Yes, that would work and we'd all know who is who.

Perhaps all tenants of local authority housing should also be obliged to wear distinctive clothing and have to curtsey should they meet someone who is of higher staus than they are?

No council accommodation in this part of Europe. Some flats are subsidized, but rents charged are a proportion of income (total for household). And there certainly are NO houses with gardens subsidised in this way- at all.