Welfare Reform Bill 2011 – Under-occupation of Social Housing your thoughts

[stu007]

The Government plans to bring the social sector in line with the private sector, as currently there is no restriction upon those resident in social housing in relation to the size of the property they occupy and the amount of benefit they are entitled to. This is in stark contrast to the system which exists in the private rented sector where claimants only receive Housing Benefit for accommodation based upon the needs of their household.

 

Ultimately the proposals are designed to achieve a number of aims, the most prominent of which are:

• The containment of the housing benefit expenditure; and
  
• The encouragement of mobility within the social rented sector. The idea being that those under occupying will be encouraged to move to smaller properties thereby releasing the larger properties for those who need them.
  

Those remaining in the larger properties will then need to make up the difference between the rent and their housing benefit entitlement. (It is not clear however as to what will happen to those who are ready and willing to downsize but are not able to due to lack of smaller properties).

 

At the present time there is a substantial issue with regard to tenants remaining in houses which have long since outgrown their occupants and, unless specifically referred to the social housing provider for possessory action, it is possible for the status quo to remain this way indefinitely.

 

Many social housing providers often find themselves unable to accommodate families on their waiting lists due to the shortage of sufficiently sized properties but have homes on their books where tenants live alone or in smaller units than they were at the start of the tenancy.

 

Therefore from April 2013 the proposal is that new size criteria will be introduced for new and existing housing benefit claimants living in the social rented sector.

 

The size criteria to be implemented will work on the basis:

• It will only apply to households that are under-occupying accommodation, regardless of the level of rent being charged; and
  
• Reduce the eligible rent by a percentage, rather than reduce it down to a fixed level. It is anticipated that this particular move in terms of a percentage reduction will accommodate the different rental values around the country.
  

The choice for the tenant in the social sector will then be either to move to appropriately sized accommodation or pay towards accommodation which is larger than the needs of their household.

 

Opponents of the plans cite the fact that circumstances are not “static” and therefore you may end up with tenants moving in and out of properties on a revolving door system as their family sizes increase and reduce accordingly. What too they say of the community ties built up by tenants who will effectively be forced to move to new areas when downsizing because there are none available in the locale?

 

The proposals have been described as the most radical shake up of the benefits system since its inception. The Government says that its aim is to streamline the system with a view to ensuring that only those who truly need the assistance receive it. The plans for social housing are arguably the tip of a very large iceberg and whether the changes can financially and practically be implemented is eagerly awaited both by those who argue it is long overdue and, on the other hand, those who have little faith in the changes working in practice.

[mariner51]

Didn't know that.

The balance between private & public sector employment is dynamic and linked to state of the economy as per pay & pensions. By 2013 will HB still be a separate or part of the calculation for the proposed single allowance?

First reaction with all curr Ts receiving HB is that anyone in receipt of HB be regarded as occupying social housing (private or HA)

The HB dept should ensure such LLs & Ts comply with their AST committments ie Ts should not claim HB for a new property unless Notice requirements etc have been met and LLs could be prevented from accepting Ts on HB unless they similarly comply with AST. Changes to HB should require 1 yr advance notification. I would suggest there has been little community spirit in most urban areas, due to Govt interference, for many years, just sink estate ghettos where some residents are fighting against the decline.

In vino veritas - meaning I've had a few!

[Madamfluff]

The Government plans to bring the social sector in line with the private sector, as currently there is no restriction upon those resident in social housing in relation to the size of the property they occupy and the amount of benefit they are entitled to. This is in stark contrast to the system which exists in the private rented sector where claimants only receive Housing Benefit for accommodation based upon the needs of their household.

 

 

Ultimately the proposals are designed to achieve a number of aims, the most prominent of which are:

• The containment of the housing benefit expenditure; and
  
• The encouragement of mobility within the social rented sector. The idea being that those under occupying will be encouraged to move to smaller properties thereby releasing the larger properties for those who need them.
  

Those remaining in the larger properties will then need to make up the difference between the rent and their housing benefit entitlement. (It is not clear however as to what will happen to those who are ready and willing to downsize but are not able to due to lack of smaller properties).

 

At the present time there is a substantial issue with regard to tenants remaining in houses which have long since outgrown their occupants and, unless specifically referred to the social housing provider for possessory action, it is possible for the status quo to remain this way indefinitely.

 

Many social housing providers often find themselves unable to accommodate families on their waiting lists due to the shortage of sufficiently sized properties but have homes on their books where tenants live alone or in smaller units than they were at the start of the tenancy.

 

Therefore from April 2013 the proposal is that new size criteria will be introduced for new and existing housing benefit claimants living in the social rented sector.

 

 

The size criteria to be implemented will work on the basis:

• It will only apply to households that are under-occupying accommodation, regardless of the level of rent being charged; and
  
• Reduce the eligible rent by a percentage, rather than reduce it down to a fixed level. It is anticipated that this particular move in terms of a percentage reduction will accommodate the different rental values around the country.
  

The choice for the tenant in the social sector will then be either to move to appropriately sized accommodation or pay towards accommodation which is larger than the needs of their household.

 

Opponents of the plans cite the fact that circumstances are not “static” and therefore you may end up with tenants moving in and out of properties on a revolving door system as their family sizes increase and reduce accordingly. What too they say of the community ties built up by tenants who will effectively be forced to move to new areas when downsizing because there are none available in the locale?

 

The proposals have been described as the most radical shake up of the benefits system since its inception. The Government says that its aim is to streamline the system with a view to ensuring that only those who truly need the assistance receive it. The plans for social housing are arguably the tip of a very large iceberg and whether the changes can financially and practically be implemented is eagerly awaited both by those who argue it is long overdue and, on the other hand, those who have little faith in the changes working in practice.

 

So what?

 

Thousands of people who buy their own homes or rent privatly and without HB have to move into an area they can afford to live in, when I got married I would have loved to live near my parents and my friends but we couldnt afford to rent there, and when we came to buy certainly could never have afforded to buy the in area.

 

Why should social housing tenants have the right to live in their 'communities' when private tenants /home owners cant.

[MrShed]

I work in the sector so have strong feelings on this (as alluded to in another recent post). Personally, I find the arguments against this pretty poor, and I'm sick of reading various sob stories about it meaning people have to move out of a home they have lived in for 30 years or similar (which isnt entirely true anyways). Social housing is exactly that - housing provided for those in need of it. It is not there to provide, neccessarily, a home that someone WANTS although obviously this is accomodated where possible. Those people who are not happy about being forced to move out of their 5 bedroom home that only themselves inhabit are in my humble opinion, not only the very definition of selfish, but also completely missing the point of social housing. Trust me, I see the waiting lists on a daily basis - those people are literally preventing those genuinely in need from having somewhere decent to live. In my opinion, the changes do not go far enough. Social housing tenants should be reassessed on a regular basis (every 6-12 months) to see if a) they still NEED the scale of property they are in and b) they still need social housing full stop. Social housing should always have been more about a "stop gap" - a fallback solution for those people who fall on hard times and cannot live anywhere else due to their personal circumstances. It shouldnt be about providing a home for life. It should be there when people fall down, and like any other benefit, rescinded when they are back on their feet. Rant over!

[The Carpet Cleaners]

here here.....

[stu007]

Hi all

 

good points so far

 

Just my thought as i find it strange as where i am most council and housing associations already have Under Occupying somewhere in their allocation policies or tenancy agreements but as for how many actually use this clause and enforce it is questionable. Maybe its the govenments way of giving that sector a kick in the rear to sort it

[Ed999]

The intention is laudable, but you can't trust the bureaucrats. There is no incentive to drive this change forward, because there are no genuine market forces in the social housing sector.

 

As the benefits army receive taxpayers money in the form of housing benefit, from the Treasury, and pay it to their local Council as landlord, it operates as a sort of concealled rate support grant. The landlord Council has no genuine incentive to impose any income reduction on itself, and anyway has too many properties to manage to be able to effectively chase tenant X who suddenly has too few points to qualify for a 3 bedroom property.

 

The real problem is the existence of secure tenancies. Abolish those, and you force the army of benefit claimants into the genuine mobility of assured tenancies, where ending a tenancy is easier for the landlord.

 

Abolish secure and assured tenancies, and give the Council the power to evict tenants on 2 months notice, under ordinary shortholds, in order to force them out of 5 bedroom properties and into smaller ones. That would be genuine progress.

 

The current proposals don't seem to envisage any change in the quantity of housing in the social rented sector. I'm not detecting any equivalent to the genuine reductions in the size of that sector brought about by the sale of council houses under Mrs Thatcher.

 

The proposals are the equivalent of shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic; a missed opportunity.