Forum Topic

bedroom tax or mansion tax - which is fair?

Been reading a lot about these two taxes recently and neither strikes me as actually being in the slightest bit fair.  Our politicians however don't appear to care what's fair and what isn't, just in raising a ever larger tax burden and shifting it onto those they think will won't be voting for their party anyway.  So how about combining these two hated taxes and having a single extra tax based on the number of bedrooms.  Mansions are by definition large and with lots of bedrooms and we all know just about every London house will be caught by the currently proposed 'mansion' tax over the coming years; the starting rate will not change and London houses are way more expensive than anywhere else, so it's actually just another tax on those of us that live and work here.  The real mansions are those enormous great houses up north, in Wales and in Scotland that are occupied by the landred gentry with dozens of empty rooms and mortgages that wouldn't look out of place on a 2 bed London terrace house.  Would anyone vote for that?

Lorne Gifford ● 4535d137 Comments

Thank you David! It’s revealing that people have focussed on the part of the question that directly affects them, whilst ignoring the part that doesn’t affect them regardless of if it is fair or not.  Bedroom and mansion tax are two ends of one problem and need to be addressed together.  It’s not a question of ‘rich enough to afford it’ or ‘should be made to pay for having a big council house’, as down that path lies the politics of envy. It’s a much more simple question of taxes that are plainly not fair, won’t raise more money than they cost to administer and appeal solely to those that follow the herd mentality.  Both taxes are essentially vote buying schemes by different political parties.  They should both be dropped immediately and it would be immensely nice if one of our local politicians has the courage to stand up and address them.

Lorne Gifford ● 4396d

He knows what he is talking about.

David Giles ● 4397d

https://www.change.org/petitions/department-of-work-and-pensions-hold-a-public-enquiry-into-deaths-after-atos-medicals?utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

Simon Anderson ● 4401d

The Bedroom Tax is unfair and has caused great distress nationwide,it was obviously thought out by one of these overpaid Quangos,now if the government were to cut back on them it would save us Billions of Pounds per year.After all say £50 Billion being used for inane ideas is simply not good enough.We have cutbacks on our NHS,Police and Fire Services to contend with,these things are a necessity to us not a luxury. It is shameful that in today's society we have so much poverty whilst so much of our money is wasted.

Dawn Hardy ● 4414d

Well I am a disabled woman on my own I have lived in this house all my 43 years and I have had it fitted for my wheelchair, I took on the house when my parents died and now have an extra £75 pound per month to pay out for the bedroom tax. I have looked and I cannot find these HUNDREDS of 1 bed houses you seem to think are out there and if you do a mutual exchange you do not get these incentives I was told you get £1000 per room you give up but NOT if you mutual exchange. And older people the ones that have the 3-4 bedrooms houses this doesn.t apply to them,I will pay my Bedroom tax as I refuse to give up a 2 bedroom house with garden and I have 3 siblings all in the same road, one that is my carer and I will not be STUCK in a 10 storey flat isolated from the world and dreading the lift breaking only to give my lovely house up to an immigrant family fresh off the plane, and sorry but that's all I see here in Hounslow... so even if it means cutting down on my food bill I will stay put! Come fight me for my house

Lisa Butler ● 4414d

Q15. [162817] Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab): The bedroom tax is turning into a disaster in constituencies such as mine. Families are moving out of good-quality social housing and into the private rented sector at a greater cost to the taxpayer. Three and four-bedroom houses are now standing empty and are classed as hard to let. I even have pensioners approaching me saying that they want to downsize but cannot because small properties are prioritised for families. Is this not turning into a disaster for the taxpayer, as well as for families?The Prime Minister: This is fair for the taxpayer. We do not give a spare room subsidy to people in private sector accommodation, so we should not give a spare room subsidy to people in council accommodation. The question now is for the Opposition. We have decided to remove the spare room subsidy. They now say they support our spending changes—well, they did for about five minutes last week. Is that still the case, or are they committed to repealing this? There is absolutely no answer.

Simon Anderson ● 4414d

No i haven't Dawn as been paying it, why have you?

Simon Anderson ● 4419d

Urrrm did hear Cameron correctly at today's PMQ's, did he really say that they are now happy to get rid of the Bedroom tax but its labour that's preventing them doing so??

Simon Anderson ● 4419d

I have herd that 2 Pensioners i know both have 2 Bed council places but don't Pay this Bedroom tax as they are Pensioners and both haven't worked in their Life's...

Simon Anderson ● 4430d

Apparently only at State Age Pension not Private(Early)

Dawn Hardy ● 4430d

Is it true that Pensioners don't have 2 pay the Bedroom Tax?

Simon Anderson ● 4430d

Simon - I in no way stated that you were lying at all. What I am saying is that the tax should be waived IF the visitation is confirmed through a court order because 'SOME' people blantantly lie to get bigger properties etc. I have not implied that you have done this by any means, and thought I was entitled to have an opinion. I have struggled as a single mum for the past 13 years with 4 children and I have never been given money from their father or support from the benefits system. Yes my choice, as it was my choice to go back to work when  my children were 6 weeks old, purely because I never want to be in a position where anyone could say that I have abused the system. You state that you CHOSE to have his sisters, and him, which I praise but again that is your choice, no one has forced you to do that. I have not been out on New Years Eve for 13 years not that that has any bearing on anything whatsoever. As I say, I have not accused or implied anything of you....

Kathy Riley ● 4484d

Great news Simon, I'm pleased to hear that you have not been put on a Debtor Listing.

Dawn Hardy ● 4487d

Thanks Dawn, No its a Final reminder to pay the Arrears or it gets sent to a Debt Collector, it was from Hounslow Homes. I sent them a Email today giving them Grief.I told them if they had sent me the card back in March when i first asked etc etcI remember getting a letter a couple months ago about the Bedroom tax and how i would have to pay and that a Payment card would be sent to me and it would start April 1st.

Simon Anderson ● 4488d

Has there been a court case Simon, with judgement made against you?  If not the debt collector has no more authority to demand money from you than I have and in the unlikely event that one calls at your door just tell him to do one.

Phil Andrews ● 4488d

If these Council Office workers showed as much aptitude on efficiency as they do with time wasting by golly we would have the best run council in the UK.Simon, you can prove just how hard you tried to pay this ridiculous tax, take them to Small Claims Court for the cost and humiliation of having your name on line now as a bad debtor. They have a bloody cheek and you deserve a full blown apology and your name removed from their blacklist.

Dawn Hardy ● 4488d

Just read it. The Labour party are lying to people as they keep going on this Tax is unfair and should be Scrapped then say this.Ridiculous, been waiting 4 a payment card 2 pay this Tax (Reluctantly) since March, emailed the Council 3 times and promised 1 is in the Post. Then get a letter saying i am in arrears of £27, not only did they send me a letter but my wife got 1 2. I contacted them and they apologized 4 the 2 letters and said they would put a freeze on my Acct as I was waiting 4 a payment card. On Tuesday i got the Card and paid 4wks Tax (From April 1st)...Then today we get a Final Demand 4 just over £40 or a Debt Collector will come to get it from me. Disgusting...Seeing how i couldn't pay because they didn't send me the card after i asked them 3 times since March and they have the nerve 2 blame me.

Simon Anderson ● 4488d

I thought Simon in particular might like to read this in the light of earlier comments:http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/ed-miliband-makes-no-promise-2821780

Phil Andrews ● 4488d

Of course it is completely unfair, just how much do they expect to accumulate over one Fiscal year, are they assuming that all people on benefit have a room that is not in use.There would be hell to pay if Government tried to use this Tax on Private Home-owners(1 Home in use)it will be attempted whether this one or the next. Of course in retrospect it would not happen I mean just how much would each MP have to pay in 1 fiscal year, do you not remember the wily old Baroness who used a 65 yr old Clerk in the House of Lords to pass through a Bill at 6-30 pm at the height of the Expenses Scandal that said that MPs did not have to stay overnight in their second 2nd homes, now that would certainly bring the pennies in would it not!

Dawn Hardy ● 4489d

Thank You Dawn. My Son and my wife are the most important people in my life and i would be Lost without them i am truly a Lucky person 2 ave them.....I saw a Friend of mine today whom has worked all her life and raised 3 kids. Her Oldest Daughter got involved with the wrong Boy and has gone off the rails, she had a Baby last year but because of violence and drugs she didn't want the baby and gave the baby to her Mum who now has Full Parental rights signed over to her by the Mum (via the courts and social services) but she has to pay the Bedroom tax because the Government are saying that the Baby is classed as a Lodger, i feel this is Unfair as she has the Child full time..I thought Foster Carers were exempt because that's what she is really doing Fostering her own Grandchild but they are saying because the Child is NOT hers she has to pay the Bedroom tax. This is totally wrong.

Simon Anderson ● 4489d

Simon,It would have been much fairer for your ex-wife to have shared the expense with you however divorce does bring bad feeling, at least you have the knowledge that you are a good Dad a boy needs his Dad.Well done!

Dawn Hardy ● 4489d

I do not see why people who are on hard times can be penalised along side lifetime benefit fraudsters, who really had no need to be on benefits and yet their kids have been somewhat indoctrinated as to this way of life.Hypothetically a married couple who have been both married and  divorced have 5 children all except one are in a relationship whereby they now have children consequently they have a Council property each and continue to collect benefit whilst never having to work, the Grandchildren know no different and so will follow this lifestyle.And yet a couple who genuinely need help never ever get it why not? because they do not know how to work the system. A few decades ago any young girl who got pregnant lived with her parents there simply was no choice, and yet an awful lot of young girls get pregnant when they really do not have to, contraception is a freebie that just was not an option in those days also the Benefit System was not in place.The Bedroom Tax should not have been brought in purely because it will and has caused bad feeling, look toward the life time benefit users, do something about them, then people will not feel so pee'd off!

Dawn Hardy ● 4489d

Kathy i can ENSURE you my son stays ere 3 and half days a week EVERY week and half of ALL school holidays i went to court and the court asked my son what he wanted (as it was my son who stated he wanted 2 stay half the week with me and half with his Mum) and the court made an order to what he wished for. The council can come here check the room it has all his Toys etc in it, they can contact his School or his mum. I am not doing this to an extra room I choose to have my son and if i could i would have him live with me and anyone who knows me personally Knows what i am saying is true. When i split from his Mum in 03 i only had to have my son every week but i choose to have his 2 sisters that i raised aswell, i had all 3 off them EVERY weekend, School Holidays (ohh I have never been out on New Years Eve since 2003) in a Studio flat for 5yrs. I agree there are people out there who get Council places by saying they have their child staying when they don't as i know someone who obtained a Flat some Years ago by saying he had his daughter on weekends when he has never had her over night once. But i can ensure you i am not 1 off these people.

Simon Anderson ● 4489d

Sorry for not responding earlier but I stick by what I said, the person I was referring to was not from the area, moved in with a pensioner as a tenant and now has been given the 3 bedroom family home, though there was no succession rights. I am sorry he has children that do not live in the borough and visit him when they can be bothered so surely placing him in housing closer to them would be better? I have a spare room, that yes I have turned into a study for my daughter but I pay full rent, I do not claim any benefits even though I am a single mother and we struggle at times to get by, but I do purely because I will not allow anyone to tell me who can stay at my home and what I use my rooms for, so I am sorry if you have an empty room that I as a tax payer am subsidising then you should contribute to it!!Someone mentioned earlier about moving costs, new carpets etc, the council give you £1000 per room when you downsize which is to assist you with these costs. You cannot be forced to give up your property but by enforcing some of these charges on people that are clearly under occupying family homes it will give them the incentive to move?Simon, I refer to your reply about your son, I am sorry to sound cynical but whilst working for councils/police I have seen many people stating that there child lives with them every weekend etc and they have admitted to doing this purely to obtain a family home. I know a woman who's children went to school with mine, she gave up a 4 bedroom council house to her ex husband who was in a new relationship with a woman with one child using the proviso that he had his children at the weekends. So we are now in a situation whereby a couple with one child has a four bedroom home for the majority of the week with 2 bedrooms not occupied...When I have my children and/or my grandson to come and stay with me, my daughter sleeps in with me and they have her bedroom so you make adjustments, you dont just keep a spare room because when they stay they've got their own room... They have a home, and it is not mine/yours/whoever they 'stay' with you... If that was allowed then I for one if I was on benefits would say I have my second cousins brothers wife staying with me 3 nights a week... People are abusing the system over and over again and yes this makes me cynical but as a tax payer I feel I have the right to have an opinion about where my money is spent...

Kathy Riley ● 4489d

Yet Government are once again opening our borders for more Migrants, they obviously do not realise that we are already over populated especially here in London and the surrounding areas, do they even know that that the London populace is 65% migrants. Where have all the dear old Cockneys gone why they have all moved to Lincolnshire.Government must appreciate that we have a very big problem of Schools,Hospitals,Jobs plus Homes there is not enough for the population that we have now without a new influx. All this is going to do is cause very bad feeling.Although after watching News Night last evening and seeing that silly survey ( 1000 people in each country) when told of new government supposed measures of Benefit both were less enthusiastic about coming here.But of course their Human Rights will be impugned and the new law will be relaxed for them.

Dawn Hardy ● 4490d

Gill,Don't feel bad,Jennifer corrected me on my use of there,their last year, I must admit that I do take care of my written work much more.She would make a great English Teacher!!

Dawn Hardy ● 4490d

Vanessa,I would have thought that you would be as concerned as I am about "QUANGOS" these are the idiot organisations who employ individuals that each earn approx.£3000 per day for sitting on their behinds thinking up ludicrous ideas and expecting that we accept them wholeheartedly, for this we pay an exorbitant amount of approx 64 Billion Pounds per year, I would hope that someone sometime will be able to tell me of something good that has come out of this disgraceful expenditure. Ah well one can live in hope!!This is why, whenever I hear that we are short of money then delete these from our society and then we will have sufficient to fund our NHS ect.

Dawn Hardy ● 4490d

Gill I'd politely point out that your use of the word "your" is making your statements meaningless. The word "your" is a possessive adjective, as in:-  your coat; your dinner; your time.You don't mean "Your find" you mean "YOU WILL find out".  You don't mean "Your have" you mean "YOU WILL have to wait" Using "your" in "Your not entitled to" again doesn't make sense, what is a "your not"??? - it should be "YOU ARE, or YOU'RE, not entitled to".Probably, you just made typing errors responding quickly to the various posts on here but using correct grammar helps your messages to be clearly understood.

Jennifer Selig ● 4490d

I'm not sure what your obsession is with QUANGOs but these potty schemes have been dreamed up by government - no-one else.

Vanessa Smith ● 4491d

I have a daughter who is 22yrs old and growing up i couldn't see her but i had money every week deducted from my benefit till she was 18. My son i didn't have to pay for because i had him every wkend and half of school holidays up till 2010 when i got joint custody via the court.

Simon Anderson ● 4491d

Of course it will not, I think perhaps a good idea has gone awry, why because Grand Parents have their Grandchildren to stay over several times a week, consequently there really is not a spare room. This new ruling puts me in mind of history, where houses had windows bricked up because of a window tax!However after saying that I do believe that a person on benefit with a 4 bedroom house and on their own should be downsized, there are plenty of families out there who really do need this kind of property.Once again these ideas have come about from people who have no idea another Quango waste of both time and money.

Dawn Hardy ● 4491d

I can only say that before CSA changed its Rules and Regulations the absent parent's contribution towards the shared care if the child(ren)stayed with them more than two nights a week was taken into account when calculating any maintenance due. The parent who has the care for the longest period is said to be the primary carer, there is of course nothing stopping you coming to a private arrangement with your ex partner, although that is a very difficult situation. Unfortunately governments only deal in a 'one size fits all' scenario, that's why there have been so many U turns on various matters, these idiots never seem to think through the full consequences of some bright spark's brainwave.

Vanessa Smith ● 4491d

I entirely agree with you Dawn.  It is half a percent of bugger all and it won't influence the way I vote one iota.  For me being part of a community which is permitted to develop and flourish rather than being stifled is a thousand times more important than being a fiver better off at the end of the year.My point though was that the traditional distinctions between the two main establishment parties has become blurred.  Historically the Conservatives have been associated in the public mind with low taxation whilst Labour has, in theory at least, been more service-orientated.So, if you thought maintaining services was more important you voted Labour, whilst if your priority was low taxation you voted Conservative.Now, however, Labour has reduced the Council Tax and, with the closure of the Chiswick Day Centre and the constant threat looming over our libraries and community centres, has demonstrated that it is prepared to wield the axe every bit as ruthlessly as the Conservatives.For Labour there is a cold-hearted logic to this.  They know there is a certain type of Labour voter who will continue to support them whatever they do.  But what reason is there now to vote Conservative when then the party's one and only policy has been commandeered by their Labour "opposites"?This was why I asked Gill what the Conservative party programme will be going forward to the 2014 local elections.  She doesn't appear to know, which for me rather says it all.

Phil Andrews ● 4491d

Thank You Sarah. I do feel they need to address the benefit arrangements for Joint Custody parents, if you have a court order then surely you should be able to give  copy to the Benefit agency and they give half the child/rens benefits to each parent and not just the 1. Its nice that 1 parent can afford to smoke, drink and go Pubs and clubs and the other doesn't go out except 1 a fortnight to hounslow and every week to Tesco to do food shopping and doesn't drink or smoke even if they wanted too aint it.

Simon Anderson ● 4491d

Vanessa yes you are correct, they only class 1 parent as sole carer, but how can my ex wife be classed as sole carer when my son has 2 carers as i care for him 3 and half days a week and my ex wife cares 4 him the other half.The government say they are doing these benefit caps to make it fair for everyone and to ensure no 1 gets more benefits they are entitled to. So tell me is it fair that the mum gets full benefits to look after a child for a week but only look after him half the week, in my eyes she is getting money to look after our son when he isn't with her (its the same as someone doing part time work but getting the same pay as his workmate who works full time)For Example: If the Benefits were £20 a week and she only has him half of every week she is getting double than someone with a child all week its not fair and wrong. It costs me nearly £15 to feed etc etc my son now on top of that nearly £30 bedroom tax in a minute i wont be able to afford to have my Son (though i would never let that happen) after my divorce in 03 up till 2010 i even had my 2 x stepdaughters staying every week with not a penny from their mum.  I agree with part of this Bedroom Tax but it is targeting the wrong people, i agree partly because i know people in larger property's they don't need, my cousin has had a 3bed house in Devon for over 12yrs on his own, he is hardly in it and gets full benefits. I think this is wrong as a family need this type of property. I know a couple around the corner from me with 3 children (and a young baby) all in a 2bed Property (2 boys and a 14yr old girl) if people gave up properties they no longer need she would have a bigger place to live in. But i feel that they should off looked at everyones circumstances first, we should of been able to give our reason why we should have another room and each assessed on Merit, so in a case of a parent with Joint Custody should be excempt from this Tax etc etc....

Simon Anderson ● 4491d

Simon, your children, who are the people at the heart of this, have two homes - yours and your ex partners. I don't believe you should have to split the money.  Due to your circumstances, the bedroom should be ignored.

Sarah Felstead ● 4491d

Gill as 1 MP stated last week the Welfare caps will not save money in the end.

Simon Anderson ● 4491d

Each Home Sarah? I only have the 1 Home....Its Greedy MPs whom have 2 homes. Gill do you think that MPS should now pay the bedroom tax on their 2nd homes because they have Houses or flats with more than 1 bedroom when they only need 1 bedroom or is it 1 rule 4 the rich and another 4 the poor?

Simon Anderson ● 4491d

IT IS TAX...And it will cost Local Councils more to move people then what it will save.

Simon Anderson ● 4491d

It all seems unfair but in light of the reality that neither major party are committed to building more public housing there is obviously a finite amount of dwellings/rooms available.All this whilst the b&b lists grow.

Keith Iddon ● 4491d

What is also not widely known is that this tax/charge, call it what you will, is also going to affect any tenant on housing benefit with children over the age of 18 living with them.  Under the current system, once a child reaches the age of 18 they are classified as 'non-dependant' and a deduction is made from the parent's housing benefit.  These deductions have doubled over the past three years to a minimum of £13.60 per week from the start of this month and apply to any non-dependant who is over 18 and working or 25 or older and receiving JSA. Asking the youngster to leave will not help the parents much, as they will then have a spare room and be hit by the bedroom tax!In October it will get worse under the new universal credit. A flat-rate deduction of £68 a month will be made for each non-dependant and for the first time it will apply to jobseekers aged between 21 and 24. Asking them to leave will again trigger the bedroom tax but would potentially cost taxpayers more because the youngsters would be able to claim housing benefit on a separate home.Although in December Cameron was forced to abandon his plan to scrap housing ben. for under 25s completely after a revolt by the Lib-Dems. However it is thought the under 25s and their bedrooms seem certain to be targeted in the next Conservative manifesto.

Vanessa Smith ● 4491d

From my DWP/CSA days I believe it is the person designated as the primary carer who gets the benefit.

Vanessa Smith ● 4491d

Simon,I do see your point if you have joint custody and you share 50% of the child then yes why? should you be penalised for the second room.

Dawn Hardy ● 4491d

What will approx. £5.00 per year to do for us.

Dawn Hardy ● 4491d

It appears this bedroom tax (call it a charge, but to most people any money you are obliged to pay to government is taxation; that being the definition of the word ‘taxation’) is really just a way of saying ‘our promise of a house for life is no such thing’.  It therefore represents a default on the original contract for social housing and might well be completely illegal.  Guess we’ll have to wait for some brave sole to stand up and take the issue to court for a judge to decide.I expect there will be a quicker move to take the mansion tax to court as being equally illegal and discriminatory if it is passed into legislation; more than one or two high court judges no doubt being caught by it.So in the end we’ll have two stupid proposals for taxation, both of which would net minimal revenue, bought down by the fundamental rule of English law that you can’t do things which are plainly unfair.

Lorne Gifford ● 4491d

Yes, thanks to the Lib Dems.And if this government gets its way that's all I will be earning.

Phil Andrews ● 4491d

You can earn 10k now without paying tax

Gill Hutchison ● 4491d

So when and by what means do I, as a taxpayer, receive my rebate?

Phil Andrews ● 4491d

'Yes if they pay for it otherwise allow the correct homes go to the correct people' For goodness sake!  I suggest you read back what you have  said and take a good hard look at it then revisit your policy.People like Simon ARE the 'correct' people - a family spilt into two mainitaining a relationship and home life for children.  He isn't making it up to suit, the Courts have endorsed the arrangement.

Sarah Felstead ● 4491d

The whole idea Is to reduce the benefit cost reduce the cost to tax payers paying for extra rooms that are not entitled to

Gill Hutchison ● 4491d

GillAs with the Big Society concept and the abolition of the 50% income tax rate this government is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.To put it another way, if the government's motive for introducing the bedroom tax/charge is to make more suitable housing available for families can we assume it will be investing all the profit it makes out of people like Simon in building new affordable family homes? If not, why not?

Phil Andrews ● 4491d

Yes if they pay for it otherwise allow the correct homes go to the correct people

Gill Hutchison ● 4491d

Talk about using a hammer to smash a nut!  How on earth do you think people are supposed to live.  Of coursed Simon and people in his situation should be allowed to keep two rooms, one in each home.

Sarah Felstead ● 4491d

And try to make sure the correct people get the correct housing if you require a 3 bedroom home and someone is getting benefit for that 3 bedroom home with only the requirements for a two bedroom isn't right they move to the size of home that they need and then that frees up the bigger home for the family that needs it  Is that's not looking after families I don't  know what is  It is already working I seen it on my estate and there is movement on the ivybridge and Heston farm  and it is NOT a TAX

Gill Hutchison ● 4491d

Gill Firstly she wont and Legally doesn't have to. Your party wants Benefit Fairness so why have they not addressed this issue?Secondly, It is a TAX its basically The Tories Failed Poll Tax, its unfair to the Poor and it needs to be scrapped!! But the Nasty party wont do that as they only take care of the Rich.

Simon Anderson ● 4491d

The parent who gets the benefit should give you half if you share care otherwise they are getting money for something they are not doing ie looking after a child on a full time basis.  Also Simon it is not a tax it is a charge for a extra room which is used full time or for 31/2 days a week

Gill Hutchison ● 4491d

NOPE....only 1 parent can claim child benefits. I have supported my son for 10yrs without a penny. Now thats why this bedroom tax is unfair.

Simon Anderson ● 4491d

If you have shared custody then surely you should have half the benefit then you can pay for the extra room

Gill Hutchison ● 4491d

Gill i have Joint custody off my son (by court order) i have him 3 and half days a week every week and half of ALL school holidays. Why should the mum get Full Housing Benefit 4 a room 4 him to live in 7 days a week if he only stays in it 3 and Half? Tell me why should i not have the other room its lived in?

Simon Anderson ● 4491d

"Well that's the only way your find out before it get published"???

Phil Andrews ● 4492d

Read my reply properly

Gill Hutchison ● 4492d

On January 29th local Conservative leader Councillor Peter Thompson told the Hounslow Chronicle: "I want the public to know what we are thinking, what we are saying and what we are planning for 2014".But according to you Gill they will have to join the party to find out!Can't be right, shurely?

Phil Andrews ● 4492d

Well that's the only way your find out before it get published

Gill Hutchison ● 4492d

Your policies are a secret?  That certainly is a novel strategy.A word of advice though Gill from one who wishes you well.  Don't go inviting me to join the Conservatives before your reselection is secure, and confirmed in writing!

Phil Andrews ● 4492d

Your have to wait for our manifesto or join the Hounslow conservatives . I'm not at liberty to discuss this on a open forum

Gill Hutchison ● 4492d

I was just a tad concerned because keeping Council Tax low has traditionally been a policy associated locally with the Conservatives, to be honest to the exclusion of much else.Now that it is also Labour policy it does seem to leave the Conservative campaign rather bereft.Mindful of the fact that David Giles has told us you have a secret strategy for gaining overall control in 2014 in the face of all the opinion polls (and David is a man whom I naturally take very seriously), I simply found myself wondering whether there was a chance of teasing any clues out of you.

Phil Andrews ● 4492d

Not sure what your question has to do with the title of the thread .........  Probably keeping it low and not returning to one of the highest council tax in London which was where it was heading pre 2006

Gill Hutchison ● 4492d

GillWhat will be the Conservatives' flagship policy at the next local elections now that Labour has reduced the Council Charge?

Phil Andrews ● 4492d

A charge for the extra room your not entitled too

Gill Hutchison ● 4492d

Oh well, that's alright then.

Vanessa Smith ● 4492d

It's not a tax it's a charge.    Stop calling it a tax it not

Gill Hutchison ● 4492d

I've knocked on enough doors during my lifetime not to be surprised by anything I hear, but does anybody seriously believe that a partiular ethnic or religious group would be exempt from paying tax?The only people in this country who seem to be able to get away without paying their fair share these days are tbe rich, Muslim or non-Muslim.

Phil Andrews ● 4492d

Is it true Muslims don't ave to pay this tax? I herd back from Mary McLeod's office. Not much she can do as its Government policy apart from write to the council on my Behalf (seems a waste of time) and that she has herd from many of her constituents concerned about this Tax.

Simon Anderson ● 4492d

But most of the stock that the local authority has was built in the days that shared bathroom facilities were the norm.  This is why such units are low-demand.

Phil Andrews ● 4492d

Most sheltered units have their own bathrooms.Shared facilities is unusual nowadays.

Keith Iddon ● 4492d

Good to know I might find a place to lay my head but shared bathroom facilities don't appeal as I totter ever onwards - suppose if I'm dotty by then I won't notice or mind.  What do you do about cooking and eating or is that sort of hospital standard communal fare?

Jennifer Selig ● 4492d

Essentially it is a unit of accommodation in a block with a warden and shared bathroom facilities.

Phil Andrews ● 4492d

What is " old-style sheltered accommodation".  The rate my savings are vanishing, I may well need this.

Jennifer Selig ● 4492d

SimonThis is actually not an unusual occurrence. But there is no shortage of old-style sheltered accommodation so nobody suffers.

Phil Andrews ● 4495d

I found it unfair that some years back a woman who owned her 3 bed council home was able to get a flat in Sheltered accommodation from the council and sold her house. Surely if you have your own property and you are selling it then you should be able to buy your own small flat in sheltered accommodation??

Simon Anderson ● 4495d

Quite right Vanessa - society seems to have forgotten the importance of doing the right thing. I get so frustrated at the numerous examples of people pursuing personal gain at the cost of the greater good. From the bankers and their bonuses to Ann Keen and her abuse of the expense system.

Chris Broadbent ● 4496d

Phil - thanks will get on to it.

Chris Broadbent ● 4497d

Absolutely Phil, apart from anything else it is depriving someone more deserving of a home. I would like to see all councils get tough on this as I am sure it is more common than we think.

Vanessa Smith ● 4497d

ChrisOne cannot own property capable of being resided in and be a Council tenant. Simples.A few years ago I was considering buying a static caravan, and I asked the Borough Solicitor how this would affect my social housing tenancy.  As it happens it would not have done, because the caravan site was only open for ten months during each year.  But had it been open all the year round the advice was clear - I would have been in breach of my Tenancy Agreement.You should report this greedy individual.

Phil Andrews ● 4497d

But if you have the council property before you acquire the buy to let property then surely the position is exactly the same as a lottery winner. And as you sway there is nothing the council can do - rather depressing isn't it?

Chris Broadbent ● 4497d

A council property is not a cheaper option for a buy to let landlord to live in. If you own property of your own then you are not entitled to a council home plain and simple. The lottery issue is quite different, that person got their home presumably prior to their win, and you assume that they will indeed buy somewhere and move out, but if they don't then there's nothing the council can do - morally it may be wrong I daresay, legally it isn't. I personally would just e-mail Steve Curran with the name, address and information, ensuring you have all the correct facts of course.

Vanessa Smith ● 4497d

I must admit I didn't think there was anything the Council could do - I had in the back of my mind the scenario when Stroud Council stated that they couldn't force a lottery jack pot winner to move out of their council house. Are the rules different for each council - what are the criteria for Hounslow Council forcing you to give up your property? Your help is much appreciated

Chris Broadbent ● 4497d

And you have of course informed the approporiate authority about this situation - yes? Cllr. Steve Curran is the executive member responsible for housing matters.

Vanessa Smith ● 4497d

If you have Private Property you definitely should not be allocated a Council Property there are so many who are urgently in need in need.

Dawn Hardy ● 4497d

Just linking two threads together I know one woman who lives in council accommodation who owns two flats in a new development which she rents out. Both flats were bought with car parking but she rents out the car parking separately and has rented the flats to two couple who each have two cars - so there are a result of her greed 6 cars chasing 2 car parking spaces (and that's before I question why she is taking accommodation from a more needy case)

Chris Broadbent ● 4497d

Oh Phil perhaps we could start with Parliament then onto the House of Lords that must evaluate to at least 1000 persons wouldn't you say. I personally know of at least one guy who owns 6 properties which he lets out at a very very good profit whilst of course helping the Welfare system!He is by no means a Millionare?

Dawn Hardy ● 4507d

I agree with much of you say in principle Dawn but who are these people who are earning in excess of £1,000,000 per year?David Beckham and Madonna excepted, of course.

Phil Andrews ● 4507d

Exactly as we are all aware it is very difficult to live on a daily basis without added taxes. I really do not know what to believe any longer. The cost of living is extremely high and yet members of Quangos who incidentally earn approx £3000 per day keep coming up with these stupid ideas.Can anyone in all truth tell us of any GOOD idea that they have come up with?Lets see we as a country need funds OK when you consider that these Quangos are costing we the Tax Payer 64 Billion Pounds per year to run then lets gat rid of them all and by golly there you have sufficient money for the next fiscal year.

Dawn Hardy ● 4507d

Good idea, and any income raised should be made available to the local community in the area where the second home is, to compensate them for the detriment caused.

Phil Andrews ● 4507d

How about a tax on second homes that are rented out, a tax on each room would be appropriate. Thus taking the onus away from the working class.

Dawn Hardy ● 4508d

Hang about.In my experience in more recent times people in poverty manage better to get social housing more than workers on low wages. That is my perception.I think that social housing should have continued to have been supplied to the so called working classes, and Mrs T’s changes were to my mind, both then when I could not foresee the future and now when I see the damage she has inflicted, iniquitous.While Harold Wilson and George Brown ruined part of our economy at least they built more houses than I think has happened since under subsequent administrations.So yes Phil I would support social housing for working people but these days there is not enough to go round and my comment was based on what I see and not upon what I would like.About fat cats. While I agree the Care home thing if reported correctly is quite scandalous, the principle I put forward is that Fat Cats have, as their MAIN priority,  to expand our economy and assets and increase employment. They can then have their perks. If they only increase the share price and that is their main priority then my view is that they can’t have their perks. And sadly that is how the big companies seem to operate. And if the fat cats have wealthy mansions and cannot demonstrate that they are not only working for themselves, but are also working for the good of the country, then tax them. That will keep a few out of work accountants in business. And yes Vanessa there should be adequate protection for workers and these are being eroded by the right wing. And no, even any mention of playing games with the minimum wage is totally out of court.

George Knox ● 4508d

From Private Eye:Care workers are ugently needed and JobCentre+ is advertising these at £6.19 per hr. (minimum wage) or just over. BUT a lot of private care agencies are refusing to pay for travel time between home visits. If a carer worked from 7.30.a.m until 12.30 p.m. lunch break - not paid, if they then provide 30 minutes care for each of six clients, they could end up being paid £18 for five hours work.  A clear breach of legislation and grossly shortchanging the vulnerable clients and carers. One agency in the Midlands is paying between £6.19 and £6.50 an hour with no paid travel time between clients and 20p a mile for petrol and wear and tear on the car! Some in London are paying £6.90 an hour but no travel time and no mileage allowance. The catch is that the unemployed could face "sanctions" from JC+ - cuts in Jobseekers allowance if staff decide that they haven't applied for jobs recommended to them.  Apparently this has come about because of "aggressive cost-cutting measures" by hard-up local authorities who have been pushing down provider's charges. The DWP who seem to be supporting this illegal practice should remove the service from their vacancies but as per they are failing to police the agencies who advertise with them. In fact one person who complained about pay without travel time was told by DWP, who dismissed the complaint, stating incorrectly the job "did conform to the national minimum wage because it was a zero-hour contract."I only hope that the care agency bosses and care home owners riding around in their Bentleys can sleep at night, what have we come to when this sort of thing is tolerated. How can we expect people to want to do these very important and vital jobs when they cannot earn a living wage - then we wonder why our most vulnerable people are treated so appallingly. No-one says a business shouldn't make a profit, there's no point in running anything if you can't make a decent living, but it's how much and in what way you do it. Off the backs of the unemployed with a government colluding to bypass the minimum wage law and then calling people feckless and lazy is not one of them. 

Vanessa Smith ● 4509d

Wages are usually a large part of the overheads of a business - if wages are too high, the price of the end product may rise, making it uncompetitive, too expensive - thus unsaleable.  Mr Fat Cat employer has two options:  lower the wage but keep the existing staff levels and maintain production rate or, pay the high wage but to fewer staff and produce less, reducing turnover and profit, risking failure of the business and unemployment for all.I can't think Mr Fat Cat would want that scenario - he needs his business to flourish and that can't be easy in these tough trading times.  He's damned if he cuts wages but keeps the workers on, or damned if he keeps the high wages but fires a third of his workers.  Don't tell me he doesn't deserve his salary.  These bosses are not inhumane monsters, I'm sure majority of them are principled, hard working, honest people who must lie awake worried about the responsibility they have for their workers', as well as their own, wellbeing and lives in addition to trying to make a return to the shareholders who have invested money into his company.

Jennifer Selig ● 4509d

"I am not all for fat cat employers drving around in Bentleys if they are doing that off the back of poorly paid employees for whom the British taxpayer is having to fork out benefits in order that they can keep body and soul together, why should we subsidise cr*p employers?"This is the bottom line which needs to be stressed over and over and over again.  The politicians and the mass media are very good at fostering division between the working poor and those without any work by peddling the idea that the struggling taxpayer is keeping the unemployed in a life of idle luxury.The reality of the situation is that most recipients of benefit are actually working, and they are receiving benefit as a taxpayer subsidy to ensure that they receive the living wage that their employers will not pay.The working poor are not subsidising idleness, they are subsidising bosses who short-change their employees in the knowledge that the state will pick up the tab.

Phil Andrews ● 4509d

Well said George!

Alex Shpinkov ● 4509d

"And Phil social housing these days is less for the working classes but now more for those who live in poverty."I'm sorry but that is just not true. When it is thought that you need to be earning at least £80,000 per annum to be able to get on the housing ladder in the south of the country then it is patently clear that social or affordable housing - call it what you will, is desperately needed. What is so wrong with a decent, vibrant rented sector? Only in the UK is there this total obsession with property ownership, and look where it has got us. Only a generation ago it was something that the majority didn't even think about.I am not all for fat cat employers drving around in Bentleys if they are doing that off the back of poorly paid employees for whom the British taxpayer is having to fork out benefits in order that they can keep body and soul together, why should we subsidise cr*p employers? Demonising the less well off who don't cost our economy even a tiny proportion of what the big cpmpanies and banks have ripped us off for is unfair and unforgiveable, the sad thing is that so many daft people bother to give this rubbish any credence.

Vanessa Smith ● 4510d

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Vanessa Smith ● 4510d

This thread is a very good example of illustrating how complex the laws are and how difficult it is to keep up with the momentous changes. I certainly have not tracked it all. However ignorance of the whole complex picture could not be a better growth area for increasing dogma and prejudice. That makes it very hard to have a balanced view about how more disadvantaged people should be treated than those who are not.I have two natural instincts about whether people should move or not. For those who have for a long time had all their main roots centred in one area it must be horrendous to have them wrenched from you. However if the state provides you with housing funded by the workers who pay taxes instead of you providing your own housing by dint of your own income, then it seems right that the social housing tenants should have slightly less of a say as to where they live. And Phil social housing these days is less for the working classes but now more for those who live in poverty.If I had now to find a cheaper area to live in with the object of using some capital gained from downsizing then I have always accepted that what will be, will be. As I grow older I would feel the fear of being yanked away from the security of my roots far more keenly.By accepting what will be, will be I do think we have to look at that in nationwide terms as well. The country is poorer and will get poorer in the absence of some miracle which we cannot yet predict. We therefore have to reduce our social expenditure and face people to the harsh reality that they will have to push harder to find work. If our laws faced long term benefit claimants with the prospect of being moved to parts of the country where there is more vacant property or where it is much cheaper to build social housing, then I suspect that nearly all benefit claimants would feel that hanging onto their jobs would be more important than even it is today. Perhaps there would be a return to the attitudes to work which prevailed after the war.On the other hand the greed of some of the asset holders knows few boundaries. The rise in rents over the last 10 years or so has been horrendous and is causing appalling hardships in some cases. Vanessa is right about rent controls and the Labour party will do us far greater favours by controlling this (as happened under Harold Wilson) rather than relaxing the new benefit laws. We have had such awful financial management under Labour generally that anyone who wants to vote them back in to do even more damage has a remarkably short memory. If a fat cat employer wants to drive around in his Bentley then I am all for that. But only if the tax authorities know that he has increased his assets and also has increased the number of people employed by him. Perhaps otherwise he should then be eligible for a mansion tax so that he can be reminded of his responsibilities towards society.All in it together? Well let us see openly and publicly that the employers are helping our country as well.

George Knox ● 4510d

Why does this sneery talk always come across as jealousy and envy.  Yes, of course they are fortunate to have these things but don't you think it must have been worked for and is still being worked for?  What's wrong with people having these things if they or their family have paid for them and pay taxes on their incomes?  Do you think everyone must be forced into a basic Council owned hutch in a tower block or a 2 up 2 down Council owned house and is a criminal if they aspire to earn more than the basic wage?  God forbid if they approve of grammar schools or exams involving anything more than ticking the correct box.  It's always a grinding down rather than a raising up with you.

Jennifer Selig ● 4510d

Yes, and aren't they lucky to have all these bedrooms? IDS lives in a mansion, rent free courtesy of his father in law, and also has a tennis court and swimming pool. They haven't a bloody clue. Meanwhile Cleggy is off holidaying in a 20 bed chalet belonging to his family.

Vanessa Smith ● 4511d

... always useful to have the odd child tucked away in a bedroom somewhere if you wish to sound in touch with the plebs....

Sarah Felstead ● 4511d

Him, too?;-)

Sarah Felstead ● 4511d

Wasn't that John Selwyn Gummer?

Phil Andrews ● 4511d

Is Grant Shapps the one who fed his children beef burgers?...  ...  ;-)

Sarah Felstead ● 4511d

Fair dues.  I may have told you before that I voted Labour in the London mayoral election, or more precisely I voted for Ken Livingstone who happened to be the Labour candidate.

Phil Andrews ● 4511d

Thats fine Sarah, its not your Fault. I doubt i would get a reply anyway, i even emailed IDS and Grant Shapps with no reply.

Simon Anderson ● 4511d

Phil i beat myself up because for the past 10yrs i have had to pay to have my son (which is a pleasure and i would pay anything to do) but now i have to pay out more. So i loose 14% of my Benefit on top of loosing around £15 a week to have him stay (food, Heating etc etc) and they call us Scroungers, i have sat here 2 days in a row without heating as i cant afford to have it on.. I like the Fact they have made NO Cuts in Westminster. MPS call Benefit claimants scroungers they an talk they have 2 property's and claim of the Tax payers and they dont get a 1bed Flat as a 2nd home do they, they get big Expensive Houses or Flats because they can take it from the Taxpayer. I read about a Tory MP who criticized people on Benefits whilst he is a Millionaire with a Farm, Cricket Club and 24 Houses and claims £100K for a 2nd home and he is calling 4 Benefit cuts. Then there is Cameron who is happy to take DLA when his son was alive but now scraps it, he is a millionaire but has the nerve to claim DLA. Then IDS states he could live on £53 a wk But i bet he would never give up the other £1528 a week he gets. As to voting in 2015 yes i have made my mind up its Labour 4 me. I wont be voting 4 them in 2014 though.

Simon Anderson ● 4511d

Thank you for replying Simon, and I am sorry that you didn't hear back from our Political people.

Sarah Felstead ● 4511d

SimonYou should not beat yourself up over this.  You are a locally-minded individual and anybody whose main priority is the local area and who had met the three candidates from the three main parties at the last general election would have concluded that Andrew Dakers was the obvious choice by a country mile.Maybe I am biased because I voted for him too.  But although Mary is a very pleasant girl and clearly insightful and intelligent she is when all is said and done a party-liner from the wrong party, and who other than somebody with a blind organisational allegiance (not to mention one that was deaf, dumb and with no sense of smell) would have chosen Ann Keen from the three?As for the next election, if you are already decided then you have the beating of me on that score.  I don't share the loathing that Labour partyists have for the Lib Dems and understand the reasons for them making the decision to go into coalition, however I think sustaining a government like this one is too high a price to pay, especially when the Tories demonstrably can't be trusted even to honour their side of a coalition agreement.As for Labour, well I detect no sense of shame or regret for them having imposed Ann Keen on us for so many years and it looks quite possible that the next candidate will be one who has publicly declared herself of the view that it is okay to lie to voters during election campaigns.  No movement on that count then.This leaves the Greens, who would be my natural choice if I wasn't still pissed at them for trying to b***ocks up the community campaign in Syon (it made no difference to the outcome in the event, but it's the thought that counts as they say).So I may well turn out to be one of those conscientious objectors who Vanessa wants to send to prison, but I might just avail myself of the choice not to choose whilst I am still allowed.

Phil Andrews ● 4512d

Sarah - Yes i did give her a chance i emailed her and wrote to her but got NO reply. I also wrote to the PM about the same thing with No Reply.

Simon Anderson ● 4512d

Vanessa everything you just said was 100% correct but in the end i didn't vote Tory i went for Andrew Dakers as i thought the Lib Dems would keep the Tories out how wrong was i. But yes i should of listened to you but i can assure you that in 2015 i Vote Labour as will my Family and Friends.

Simon Anderson ● 4512d

Things are certainly very strange at the moment and it seems that there are not many common values.Simon, I do find it a bit odd that you have enlisted Mary Macleod’s support to help you with your housing and yet you have not given her the opportunity to hear your opinion about this rent a room fiasco.  If she has listened to you before, why would she not listen to you explaining how this affects people in your situation?

Sarah Felstead ● 4512d

I don't like saying this Simon (well actually I do) but who was it who was singing the praises of the Tories and Ms. Macleod in particular prior to the last election? Seems to be a case of you reap what you sow. What on earth did you expect from them? What they have done today is so appalling it beggars belief, justice only for the rich, and the destruction of our once proud welfare state - God help the NHS. Neil Kinnock was right 'I warn you not to be be ordinary, I warn you not to get old' - that sound you can hear is the wings of the chickens coming home to roost.

Vanessa Smith ● 4512d

2015, now there's a thing.  Tbh I achieve a better rush of excitement looking forward to my next haircut.Much though I relish the opportunity to turn out and help change the fate of humankind I think I will be working that day.  Or not, if Mr Cameron has anything to do with it.

Phil Andrews ● 4513d

Thanks for agreeing with me. As u know i have had my son every week for 10yrs now without a single penny and i waited 7yrs 4 my Flat. Its Ironic that Mary McLeod helped me get this flat and its her Party making me pay to have my son half of each week and they complain about absent Fathers or those Fathers that don't pay 4 their Child/Ren. And these MP's who have 2 Property's paid by the Tax payers don't see any of them having a 1bed 2nd home. Also its great Cameron says we are in it together and we will all have to suffer these terrible times when he is a Millionaire, gets MP Expenses etc etc...And now he Gets rid of the Disability Living allowance that he used to get when his Disabled son was alive. Like i say roll on 2015!!

Simon Anderson ● 4513d

JenniferMy apologies, I wasn't accusing you of hijacking the thread.  I instinctively dislike these forum policemen (especially active on W4.com in my experience) who presume for themselves the right to tell other posters what they may or may not discuss and heaven forbid I should ever become one!The raison d'être of council housing is, according to Wikipedia, "to supply uncrowded, well-built homes on secure tenancies at reasonable rents to primarily working-class people".  The "uncrowded" bit seems to have fallen by the wayside over the years, but you get the drift.Council housing is allocated according to need, and it is of course incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate that need.  So for example a single person without children or any other extenuating circumstances who is able to live with his or her parents would not be considered a high priority.  Neither of course would somebody who clearly has the financial means to purchase their own property.If I understand what you are driving at correctly there is of course the question of whether housing need remains constant.  In some instances a household may not have the means to buy privately at the time of allocation but their circumstances may change for the better (although the present government has been quite effective at minimising the prospects of this ever happening to the large majority of working-class families).  In such cases there is not, at present, any kind of periodic "means test" whereby a family's continuing need for social housing is assessed, although I understand that the idea of introducing such a test has been mooted.Speaking personally I do not believe those who clearly do not need social housing should be occupying it, especially in the light of the fact that it is in increasingly short supply relative to the demand that exists for it.  But I would be concerned by any proposal for a periodic review that sets the bar too low and thereby induces panic and insecurity amongst tenants who may not in reality be in a position to take up other options.Btw I took your advice an ate my chocolate, and now my feet have dropped off.  As you probably didn't know I was diabetic I will not hold it against you ;)

Phil Andrews ● 4513d

SimonI agree with you on both counts - there should be incentives to downsize (or disincentives not to, if you prefer) and there should be protection built in for those with a valid reason for having an extra room, such as those with joint custody and also those who have a disability which creates a need for additional space.As for social housing tenants placed in private accommodation, the problem of overcharging for this provision is one that really ought to be addressed at source rather than penalising the tenants who often find themselves having to follow this option through no choice of their own.

Phil Andrews ● 4513d

Also if people returned to Private Accommodation wouldn't the Housing Benefit Bill go up as Rents are much more in Private then in Council.

Simon Anderson ● 4513d

Phil  This Tax is unfair to certain people, i agree people in properties that are 2 big big for them should downsize and allow someone in need of that property have it. People have 2 remember these properties belong to the Council and were given to them when they were in Need, now they are no longer in need they should downsize. I feel its unfair that a person with Joint custody of their Child/ren have to pay this Tax to see their Child/Ren. I have my son 3 and half days a week, i dont recv any benefits 4 him as his Mum does and the Government say only 1 parent can be called Sole Carer..How can u be Sole Carer when u only have the child/ren half the week? So The Sole Parent receives Benefits every week for the Child/Dren but only have them half the week. Its like paying someone who works part time full time pay. I also agree with Vanessa there isnt many smaller properties out there and people should not be forced to move to another area. Ive lived in Isleworth 16yrs, my family and friends are here, my son's school etc etc why should i move into another area. Also Phil tell me where are the ground floor 1 bed flats 2?  Also if i moved i would have to get rid of Bedroom Furniture, Carpets (which are in great condition) have to find money for removal vans which i don't have. This Bedroom tax is unfair to many people and should be scrapped. Roll on 2015 when Labour return to power and scrap it.

Simon Anderson ● 4513d

Phil, sorry I didn't mean to hijack this bedroom tax thread - however,  I would appreciate answers to my questions concerning the "reason d'etre" of Council homes - why are they there, who are they for, criteria for getting one etc?  A reply after Easter - enjoy the chocky eggs!

Jennifer Selig ● 4514d

JenniferNobody as far as I am aware is being told to move out of their local authority home.  What is happening is that those who are under-occupying and on benefits are effectively being taxed for the privilege.  The point I have attempted to make is that whilst the principle of trying to encourage under-occupiers to downsize if they are able to do so is sound, it is often not an option that is realistically available to them and therein lies the inherent unfairness of the bedroom tax.Whether or not there should be a means test before council housing can be allocated and/or retained is another issue entirely, but it has no bearing on the question of the bedroom tax.

Phil Andrews ● 4515d

Could Phil and/or Vanessa explain about how to get a council house or flat as opposed to having to rent privately owned property?  I had assumed that Council owned properties were there as a net to catch and house really needy people until they could afford to pay their own way.  Seems my assumptions are incorrect.Is it everyone's given right to apply and be granted (or put on the waiting list for) a Council property or is one "means tested" - in other words do you have to be on the breadline with children before you'd be considered?  If this is the case, then surely, once (if) your circumstances improve and change, then I feel it would not be unreasonable to expect the Council tenant to move off allowing others in a more parlous state to occupy that particular Council flat/house.  There must be many tenants in low rental Council property where there are two or even three wage earners.  This type of set up should not be being subsidised by the Council - their Council flat/house should be vacated to make room for poorer folk.If this were spelt out from the beginning then no one would have a nasty shock when being told to move on and out of their Council flat/house.

Jennifer Selig ● 4515d

There are few if any smaller properties "available" but I know first hand from my time as Lead Member for Housing that they are not nearly as scarce in this borough as are three- and four-bedroomed properties.However the essence of downsizing is that a larger property is swapped for a smaller property, meaning that there is a zero impact on housing supply as such.  As fate would have it the number of people in Hounslow who are under-occupying is roughly similar to the number who are living in social housing who are in overcrowded conditions.But Iain has raised a valid point, viz. that in some parts of the country downsizing is by no means an automatic option.  I do tend to have a small town mentality and assume that what applies in my own part of the world is The problem with the Bedroom Tax is the same in essence as that with the Big Society, in that what could have been a sound idea in principle has in actual fact just provided an excuse for cuts.If this hadn't been so profits raised from its implementation could have been used to finance new social housing projects, or something similar.

Phil Andrews ● 4515d

I don't think there are all these smaller properties available as you seem to think. Also as you will know people tend to want to stay in the area they have lived in for years which is not unreasonable, offering someone from Isleworth somewhere in Bedfont is hardly likely to be that popular and just becasue a place has fewer bedrooms it could be at the top of a block of flats which may not be physically suitable, so there are all sorts of ifs and buts attached to this.  Hounslow at one point offered a cash incentive to downsize whether they can afford to do that now I wouldn't know. And to be honest the very convoluted scheme that Hounslow is in requires a degree of  patience and understanding which would make rocket science look easy.

Vanessa Smith ● 4515d

This is a London centric bright idea by the tories which is having a massive impact on the rest of the country. Traditionally outside of London Local Authorities only built family houses and bed sits/latterly one beds for the elderly. In low demand areas it has been common practice to over allocate. There is no property for those affected to move to and the tories know it. Hence, it is a tax and another example of how this Govt seeks to divide the poor and not so poor by scapegoating. See the link for some more details of how this will work. http://cmshome.wordpress.com/

Iain Muir ● 4516d

It could well be me, but I don't quite get where you are coming from here Vanessa.  The best and most obvious way for a tenant to downsize is to swap with one of the many, many people who are living in a property that is too small for their needs.  In any London borough there will be hundreds to choose from, and the choice of whether or where to move rests entirely with the tenant who is downsizing.  Local authorities are always looking for ways in which to incentivise under-occupiers to move into smaller dwellings.  I can't believe there would be any kind of waiting list for anybody wishing to do so.

Phil Andrews ● 4516d

This is all fine and dandy and I daresay quite a few people would downsize given the chance but where are all the properties for them to go to? There was a family on the TV the other day who wanted to move into smaller accomodation and when they applied there were 512 applicants for 50 smaller properties! And whilst it may seem unfair for an elderly person under-occupying a home, think for a minute. If you've lived somewhere for many years you know the area and your neighbours would you like to be uprooted to somewhere where you are not familiar with anything or anyone? A bit of compassion and understanding might go a long way, until and unless we have a massive house building programme nothing is going to change. And for a government to do this to people who have very little choice is cruel and unfair.

Vanessa Smith ● 4516d

I'm all for the bedroom tax, love me or hate me, its my personal opinion... As a resident of hounslow all my life, I find it hard to understand how there can be one person living in a the downstairs of a 3 bedroom family house... A house I hasten to add this person lodged in til the tenant passed away... I work hard and pay full rent, so why should people who have a spare room be allowed to just let it stay empty as a games room/junk room whatever. In response to Simon, if it is court ordered custody then no I dont think that people should have to pay extra, if however it is a word of mouth agreement between parents then no, you should pay up. I have spent my time working through properties in Hounslow Council, from a one bedroom flat on the 14th floor to finally a house, some 12 years later (only after a mutual exchange) I am fed up with immigrants moving into the country and being offered large family homes when people who have lived here all their life have to fight for theirs.... sometimes for decades... How is that right???

Kathy Riley ● 4516d

Should a person with Joint Custody of their Child have 2 pay the Bedroom Tax?

Simon Anderson ● 4530d

Here's a thought, instead of paying out all this housing benefit and imposing this appalling 'bedroom tax' on some very disadvantaged people, why not cap rents? Rents are controlled in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, France, Germany & Spain and even in New York State. But more than anything we need a massive house bulding programme which doesn't just cater for a buyer's market, we need councils to be allowed to build again.

Vanessa Smith ● 4535d

Do such proposed laws ever get a section written into them which says that the limits have to rise in accordance with property prices in a given geographical area?If the forty somethings who rule us cannot think more than 40 seconds ahead, then leave the laws alone.

George Knox ● 4535d

That's an interesting point, Lorne.The thing that strikes me about the 'bedroom tax' and its critics is that these rules already apply where people are renting privately and then claiming housing benefit; the new rules for social housing simply level the playing field.

Susan Kelly ● 4535d