Hundreds of families in Osborne’s own constituency set to lose out with ‘bedroom tax’

Hundreds of social housing tenants in George Osborne’s own Tatton constituency are set to be hit by the so-called “bedroom tax”, reports Kevin Meagher.

Hundreds of social housing tenants in George Osborne’s own Tatton constituency are set to be hit by the so-called “bedroom tax”.

From April, social housing tenants claiming housing benefit will lose 14 per cent of the amount they receive for every room in their home that is deemed to be spare. And tenants with more than one spare room risk losing a quarter of their benefit.

Now one of the housing associations serving the Knutsford area in the chancellor’s political backyard is warning about the stark effects the change will have.

Tim Pinder, chief executive at Cheshire Peaks and Plains Housing Trust, told the Knutsford Guardian:

“Many of our customers are determined to stay in their homes despite the changes, but we fear this may lead to significant financial hardship.

“For some households this could mean having to choose between feeding their families and heating their homes.”

He estimates the bedroom tax will affect as many as 700 of its 5,000 residents.

Meanwhile, a second housing association in the area is predicting a rise in rent arrears as tenants struggle to make ends meet “during this difficult time”.

Stephen Porter, chief executive at Great Places Housing Group, said:

There is no doubt that the changes… will hit some of our residents hard. Over the past year we’ve been working with them so they are prepared for the changes, which in some cases could mean downsizing to a smaller home.”

The National Housing Federation estimates 660,000 working age social tenants across the country will be affected by the bedroom tax. This represents 31 per cent of existing working age housing benefit claimants in the social housing sector. The majority have only one extra bedroom.

In cash terms, council tenants will lose, on average, £14 for their first spare room while housing association tenants will lose £16 a week, unless they downsize to a smaller property.

The fact people in the chancellor’s leafy Tatton seat – the wealthiest in the north of England – are set to be affected shows just how pervasive the impact of the bedroom tax will be.

Like this article? Left Foot Forward relies on support from readers to sustain our progressive journalism. Can you become a supporter for £5 a month?

18 Responses to “Hundreds of families in Osborne’s own constituency set to lose out with ‘bedroom tax’”

  1. LB

    Yes, the human right to screw other people over so they pay for your spare bedroom.

  2. LB

    No wonder there is a housing shortage, when people are allowed bigger properties than they need, and expect a subsidy to be paid by those that need social housing.

    Then you have people like Bob Crow, one of the 1% of super rich in the UK, also getting a subsidy, because he’s one of the the ‘brothers’.

    Some are more equal than others.

  3. John Ruddy

    But he doesnt get Housing Benefit… oh you are under the false impression that council houses are subsidised! Well, Mrs Thatcher stopped that one – Housing Revenue Account has to be self-sufficient – it cant use money from the councils own revenues, nor vice versa.
    But hey, at least you got in a cheap dig at a union boss….

  4. Alison Charlton

    Presumably, Osborne will let his constituents move into the Chancellor’s grace and favour taxpayer-funded country retreat at Dorneywood? I believe that bit of social housing is severely under-occupied.

  5. LB

    Guardian – has to be true then doesn’t it.

    The government is introducing measures that could drive thousands of families out of social housing by removing any subsidy for their rent.


    Ho hum, a subsidy exists.

    Why should rich people get a subsidy?

    Why should poor people pay extra tax (well anyone for that matter), for Bob Crow or someone as rich as him?

    Why should people be home less whilst this goes on?

    It is a case of some are more equal than others.

  6. Sue Taylor

    well lets hope he loses his seat in the next election but somehow i dont see it in post tatton

  7. Sue Taylor

    lets hope he loses his sest in the next election – doubt it though in posh tatton

  8. Adrian James Hindle

    “spare” rooms such as those filled with dialysis machines and other medical/disabilty related equipment.”spare” rooms which facillitate the act of caring and need of basic rest-at vast cost saving to the State.The Government is screwing people over .Note a nonresident carer is allowed for but not a resident one.Which is the most cost effective option?Ideology trumps economic sense yet again.

  9. LB

    Except, that’s not the case. Nice try and making up a sob story.

    Meanwhile, other people are paying a huge price for fund all of this nonsense.

  10. Newsbot9

    Yes, you’re claiming your corporate welfare and spitting at those on welfare, and anyone who’s improved their lot.

    You want to punish anyone on social housing for allocations made decades ago, and to ensure that they don’t strive, because it means losing their homes and paying far more. Gotta keep the peons down in your world!

  11. Newsbot9

    Yes, again, your inheritance makes you better in your eyes.

    A more sensible approach is a very gradual withdrawal (say…1%) of rates for council houses, up to the local commercial rates. But nope, you have to try to throw people out, ensuring you get the slums you love so much!

  12. Newsbot9

    Huge price? Yes, society and NHS will end up paying far more to subsidise the people who you’re throwing out their houses, and to help the people you’ll make ill. You’re socialising your costs again.

    And of course those stories are true. You just can’t face them.

  13. LB

    I want no corporate welfare. That’s your idea.

    Bankrupt banks – go to the wall.

    Subsidies for chronies – out of court. None.

    All you seem to be in favour of is cheap housing for the 1% Bob Crow.

  14. Newsbot9

    That’s right, you want to try and make the poor pay a massive poverty premium. You want the economy to collapse to take the middle class down.

    I want people to be able to aspire to better jobs, as you fight at every step of the way!

  15. LB

    So do I.

    So why is the state taking so much cash off them, making them poor?

    Living wage, over 4,000 quid taken off them before we get to VAT and the other taxes.

  16. Newsbot9

    2,800. Keep lying about the figures.

    And claiming that this makes them poor, when slashing services and costing them even more is your plan is pathetic and transparent. You haven’t even counted tax credits!

  17. Clive Smith

    Has anyone raised a national petition to fight this ??

  18. steve harrison

    That’s the way to do it, grind the lowest earners into the dust and let big business’s get away with their unpaid £39 billion, in tax avoidance, shear brilliance, what a scum bag

Leave a Reply