Upload a photo Upload a video Upload an mp3 Upload an event


Council Cannot Offer Smaller Houses To Majority Of Those Affected By New Tax

Thursday April 18 2013

Bedroom tax Bedroom tax

BARNSLEY Council will not be able to offer smaller houses to 97 per cent of the households affected by the so-called bedroom tax.

The cut - which came into effect on April 1 - means families who had one or more spare rooms will receive a reduced housing benefit payment.

But new figures released by the council show there are only 125 unoccupied one and two-bedroom properties available - enough for three per cent of the 3,664 households affected.

MP Michael Dugher criticised the government cut, saying many families already struggling could be pushed further in to debt and moved to smaller, more expensive private rented housing.

“The reality is the bedroom tax is not only unfair, it is also the wrong policy to solve the problem," he said. "How can it be right that the government has decided to cut the top rate of income tax for the richest people in the country, with 13,000 millionaires set to receive an average tax cut worth £100,000, at the same time as introducing these unfair changes?"

Leave a comment
comments powered by Disqus
53 Showing 53 comments

Reply Posted by Jace on Thursday April 18 2013 at 10:22
The rich get richer while the poor get poorer ...!!!!!!

Reply Posted by Yellow pants on Sunday April 21 2013 at 20:04
What the hell are you on about?

Reply Posted by Louise on Thursday April 18 2013 at 10:25
Im affected as i have a spare room. But been pregnant i cant be moving house to a 2 bedroomed then move again once its 6 month old.
Ive already moved 4 times in 4 years. There arent any 2 bedroomed in the area i need for my daughter school. She is settled and dont want to upset her by moving schools as she already doenst accept change very well.
Also annoyed that council saying that the baby will have to share with daughter, who is unable to share due to medical conditions. So have to appeal that once baby born.

Reply Posted by Grim on Sunday April 21 2013 at 18:08
Whilst I have a certain amount of sympathy I must say that there are many people in the same situation as you who pay for a mortgage.

They often cannot afford to have a bigger house or move house either but they do not get a choice. I think you should be grateful to get social housing and the baby can always sleep in your room until it is older. This is not uncommon anyway. Then no doubt you will get a move......

Reply Posted by Su on Monday April 22 2013 at 12:12
Too right!

Reply Posted by madge on Thursday April 18 2013 at 10:25
omg i cant believe this statement,the government knew when they fetched this in that there wasn't enough supply for the demand knowing that people would have to find the extra with no choice. extra money to line their pockets with.im not against people moving to smaller houses,but it should have been done gradually as properties became available

Reply Posted by guesty mcguest on Thursday April 18 2013 at 11:21
Of course they knew this, they also knew that the cost would be unavoidable for many. this generation of council house tenants will pay for the next generation of social housing due to years of underinvestment from successive governments, If you're lucky - if not things will contiune as they are and the levys will increase.

Reply Posted by Mick on Thursday April 18 2013 at 10:32
It's no good just throwing their hands in the air & saying there is nothing we can do. As well as the empty properties they need to look at houses that are occupied but overcrowded and arrange swaps with those that are under occupied.

Reply Posted by Ben on Thursday April 18 2013 at 12:03
Micks right, people should be encouraged to swap properties. The council should publicise a list of those willing to swap and then the council should facilitate it. People will be able to move to smaller properties and not have to pay for an empty room, while people overcrowded can have more space !

Reply Posted by julie on Monday April 22 2013 at 13:12
there is a web site called homeswappers.you register with them & they match you up .there is a fee to join but barnsley council are members so all you have to do is apply & the council will authorize it free of charge

Reply Posted by mcneish on Thursday April 18 2013 at 12:09
I think there should also be a toilet tax, which i am going to suggest that the council should charge, any home with more than one toilet is a bonus and shiuld be charged ab additional £10.50 a week, hopefully that will pump a bit more money into the council then maybe all the hard wirking people at the council they could get a pay rise

Reply Posted by realist on Thursday April 18 2013 at 12:46
why people find this tax so hard to understand ill never know, its not unfair!! its been unfair to allow people im council propertys to pay somm much less in rent than rest of us do, this new tax jus makes things a bit fairer, id do away with it tho and jus bring council rents in line wi real life!!

Reply Posted by bryn on Thursday April 18 2013 at 15:48
Thatcher's dead but her policies live on

Reply Posted by stevo on Thursday April 18 2013 at 16:06
Said this before and I'll say it again, as far as I am concerned it is a cynical ploy by the Tories to shove benefit claimants into minimum wage jobs.

Reply Posted by Purple pants on Sunday April 21 2013 at 18:10
To be fair Stevo why is it cynical? It is bang on and if people on benefits can work they should work. It is down to them how well they do in education and also what job they choose to do.

Unless you are telling us all that people on benefits are all thick and incapable of bettering themselves????

Reply Posted by Jane ward on Monday April 22 2013 at 09:49
Choice of job ???? dont make me laugh , would that refer to the lastest round of vacancies, Zero hours at just over 6 quid an hour . .no sir most folk aint thick and I suspect would welcome the opportunity to better themselves . . any more suggestions whist your on a roll !

Reply Posted by stevo on Monday April 22 2013 at 11:05
Of course its a ploy to shove folk into minimum wage jobs.
They know it is going to cause even further hardship by cutting money from benefits, the Tories couldn't get away with introducing the welfare card so the bedroom tax is the next best thing to slash the benefits bill and encourage people to take minimum wage jobs, working for crap companies like Asos or Perkins chilled foods.
Or "hire and fire" employment agencies that couldn't give a toss about the average joe.

Reply Posted by Su on Monday April 22 2013 at 12:18
Jobs a job, minimum wage or not! dependence on Taxpayer cannot continue, If I came out of work I would expect to take a job even on minimum wage.

Reply Posted by stevo on Monday April 22 2013 at 14:47
Su, Have you tried to live on a minimum wage job?

Reply Posted by realist on Thursday April 18 2013 at 16:48
lets hope it does shove few people into minimum wage jobs but i sincerely doubt it, why bother wen free money is so readily available!!!!

Reply Posted by Jane Ward on Monday April 22 2013 at 09:10
Could anyone please explain why the average Joe Blogs must work for a pittance ??????? whilst huge profits are being made by their employers ? people who believe this to be acceptable are probably not realists and more than likely earning vast amounts and dont have to lay awake at night wondering how to spend their last penny . . . shame on you !

Reply Posted by stevo on Monday April 22 2013 at 11:09
Because the minimum wage is the "benchmark" for wages,if people don't want jobs on the minimum wage then there are hoards of eastern Europeans that will work all day for it.
Employers and agencies know this, that's why theres a factory at Grimethorpe that employs 88% foreign workers.
Keep trying to ram this home but the sooner we get a percentage "cap" on immigrant workers in workplaces the better.

Reply Posted by Bill on Monday April 22 2013 at 19:31
Why must Joe Bloggs accept a pittance? Because they have not bothered to get good qualifications or further education then they have the nerve like you to whine that they get a low wage.
Why pay uneducated average people a good wage at a time when teachers, nurses, police, paramedics etc, people who have good educations behind them, are having their wages frozen, cut and their self paid pensions stolen. When no doubt people like you think that you pay their wages and cant be assed to pay into a pension.
Many people who are working and not on benefits are also laid in bed worrying how to pay for their mortgage and their council tax and school dinners and so on.
People on benefits do not lose their homes if they cant pay do they?

Reply Posted by stevo on Monday April 22 2013 at 20:24
"uneducated average people"
"people like you"

Straight out of the Sun or Daily Fail those remarks Billy boy.

FYI I get a damn good wage and have four final salary pensions,so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Reply Posted by Jane Ward on Tuesday April 23 2013 at 22:39
Bill I happen to know just how fortunate I am to earn well above the minimum wage and I have been employed in the same profession for the past 25 years , Please do not equate getting qualifications with earning power its not a forgone conclusion my neighbour has studied financially aided by his parents Degree and is currently working in a florist shop . . not everyone is cut out to become an MP or work in banking , I happen to think some cleaners shelve stacker's factory workers average and uneducated as you view them are perfectly entitled to a fare days pay , not a pittance . . cause your ok Jack ! Tut Tut !

Reply Posted by maxine on Thursday April 18 2013 at 17:46
lets hope that this idiotic rule doesn't shove ppl into having more kids just so that they can stay in the house they are living in! I wonder if the government thought of this..? The whole system is so wrong, what a tangled web this government weaves!!

Reply Posted by x on Thursday April 18 2013 at 18:49
therese nothing realistic about your comments realist,the majority of genuine benefit claiments dont have the money to pay the extra they are being told they have to pay so where do you think they would find the money to pay full rent,oh yes of course get a job but lets be realistic there arn't enough jobs to get everyone back to work,full time jobs are getting fewer and fewer and being replaced by part time positions,and if this government had gone about it in the right way and gave people the opportunity to move to smaller houses as they became vacant,then maybe people wouldn't have protested so much,i was one of the lucky ones who managed to find an exchange from 2 beds to a 1 bed not everyone is so lucky.you can't give jobs that dont exist to people, and you can't rehouse people into smaller houses that dont exist

Reply Posted by Purple pants on Sunday April 21 2013 at 18:14
There is nothing stopping people from having more than one job. If you cannot get a full time job then get 2 part time.

There are jobs out there but some will not have them.

Or we could go back to Victorian times whereby anyone unwilling to work (not unable but unwilling) ends up on the streets, starving??? People today have it cushy but will not be happy until they have the same quality of life as those who work, whilst refusing work themselves.

Reply Posted by Jane Ward on Monday April 22 2013 at 09:57
Thats right Mr Pants . why not 3 4 or even 5 part time jobs lets all flog ourselves . .after all someone's got to appease the massive corporations , lovely sentiments am sure the share holders would agree !

Reply Posted by stevo on Monday April 22 2013 at 11:19
Purple, have you looked for a job recently?
Any kind of job?
One of the towns major employers have recently announced they are expanding, all good, highly paid jobs working for an extremely good employer.
The jobs were only advertised on the notice board and they have had 15,000 applications for 50 jobs!

Unless you want to work for a "hire and fire" agency on a casual basis, a day here a day there, two days one week , three days the next, two days the week after, then there aren't that many jobs out there, not even part time jobs.

Reply Posted by Su on Monday April 22 2013 at 12:20
Well Said :D

Reply Posted by purple on Monday April 22 2013 at 19:35
Yes Stevo I have looked at jobs and I agree they are not well paid as a whole.

But what about pride eh? What happened to that? Our grandparents would rather have worked 6 jobs back to back than beg for charity. Sadly this does not seem to be the case today. Most of Barnsley seems quite happy to not work .

BTW Jane what on earth do corporations have to do with anything? There has always been wealthy people and big business. Does not stop you working does it?

Reply Posted by stevo on Monday April 22 2013 at 20:17
70% Of employers use agencies to recruit candidates.
There aren't many employers who set people on directly in this day and age.
65% + (if not more) of jobs in town are through agencies.
many of these jobs are poorly paid on a casual day to day basis.
one kid I know gets a text from the agency telling him if he's required or not,how does he provide for his wife and kids if he cant get regular full time work?
He may as well be going cap in hand asking for benefits and will probably get more money as a result!

That's half of the problem with people posting their incessant drivel about benefit "scroungers" on here, they don't know what goes on in the "real" world of work in Barnsley.
I'm not saying there aren't a large proportion of people taking the p*ss,because we all know of at least one person that is.

As for pride, would you have pride if you were earning £6.19 an hour working for a crap company like Asos or Symphony?
Firms that have a large proportion of "aloof" immigrant workers that don't talk to or mix with English people?

That my friend is FACT and as soon as the retards that post their incessant drivel on here actually realise this the better they will understand the real world of work in Barnsley

Reply Posted by Jim on Monday April 22 2013 at 08:09
I read in the chronicle that there is going to be another protest in the town. With this and the disgraceful scenes at Goldthorpe celebrating Thatches death,no wonder Barnsley has such a bad image.

Reply Posted by stevo on Monday April 22 2013 at 11:34
Barnsley has always had a bad image, the reason being people refuse to let go of the past and accept change.

Change and death are inevitable.

The changes we have seen have happened on an unprecedented scale, we have gone from highly skilled and relatively well paid jobs to working via "hire and fire" employment agencies on a casual basis.

As for the Goldthorpe protest, i'm not going to pass comment on that one.
All I can say is that goldthorpe and the surrounding villages were decimated by the two mines that closed.

The buffoons at BMBC are also to blame for failing to attract major businesses into town and the town centre itself.
They have been promising a Tuscan village with a halo for years and what have we got?
Pounshops, charity shops and low end shops like primark, tkmaxx and sports direct.

We have acres of brownfield sites ripe for development and with excellent transport links, BMBC aren't interested in developing them, they'd sooner build houses and factories on green belt.

I spent a lot of time over in Manchester and apparently they view Barnsley folk as pigeon fancying, whippet breeding, flat cap wearers.

Reply Posted by p on Monday April 22 2013 at 08:44
At the end of the day why should some people live in a 3 bedroom house when there is only 2 of them living in that house. If there is a shortage of housing then the government need to fund for more 2 bedroom houses. The government cant have it both ways.If it continues like it is then people who have nothing are going to start to rebel and lets face it we all saw what happened last year with the riots. The poor will start to go against the rich. Maggie you brought these policies in i'm afraid.

Reply Posted by Jumbo on Monday April 22 2013 at 19:36
No they wont coz they cant be bothered to vote never mind riot.

Reply Posted by Jane ward on Monday April 22 2013 at 08:55
What is really unfair is that there aren't enough smaller property's for people to move to and the government are well aware of this fact in addition so few jobs that pay a liveable wage . . . so to the "am alright Jacks" commenting on here a word of warning . .you haven't been spared , you'll see !

Reply Posted by Tuckie on Monday April 22 2013 at 10:08
Why are people blaming thatcher for this, dispite what she did to this area she ironically was the last prime minster with balls to stand up to people, people should look at the current and last goverment they are the ones allowing massive influx of immigrants taking jobs and their the ones imposing the ridiculous taxes

Reply Posted by julied on Monday April 22 2013 at 12:12
I think people are blaming Mrs Thatcher ( Lady) as they remember her as the PM who sold of the coucil properties but didn't let local councils use the income to replace houses that were sold - hence the ris of "social -Housing" and "Private" landlords - what seems daft to me is that they are willing to house claimants in these properties and pay most ( if not all) of the rent for them - over the years 1 family claims this benefit I am sure there could have been at least 2 or 3 houses built for less- times this sum by the number claiming and the profits would be astronomical -

Reply Posted by x on Monday April 22 2013 at 10:52
why do people think they are living on what can only be called a pittance of a wage these days,because thatcher crushed the only thing working people had to protect them, the unions,why do you think that this government can fetch in a policy where employers can just sack you without any reason,no unions,why do you think full yitme jobs are becoming a thing of the past,no unions to fight for us,yep tuckie i can see exactly what she did for this area

Reply Posted by stevo on Monday April 22 2013 at 11:13
X - spot on, couldn't have put it any better myself.
The "hire and fire" policy the Tories wanted to introduce was rebuffed and outvoted.
Hire and fire is still alive and well in the workplace though, they are called employment agencies.

Part time jobs are far more prevalent in this day and age because they are cheaper!

Reply Posted by realist on Monday April 22 2013 at 12:24
took all the comments on ere on board by x and the rest and glad to see that ther are some people on ere with some sense, however the majority jus wish to moan about employers and wages and rent hikes, im sorry but this os nowt new to non council tenants! private rents have increased and weve had to pay, mortgages have increased we have had to pay and funnilly enuff if i want extra bedrooms ill have to pay, welcome to real world wer u pay for size of house ya in! and as for me not being realistic, its more realistic to accept ya rents going up ( cos it is) rather than blaming the world, of course the governments corrupt it always has been, the only diff this time is that those of s private renting or owning are not gettin screwed, its someone else, and its fair that it should be those that have been gettin heavily subsidised rents for years, and to anyone who disagrees and thinks its too much, give up the house and live cheaper elsewer! didnt think so!!!

Reply Posted by x on Monday April 22 2013 at 12:49
i dont have any thing against people paying for extra bedrooms if they have the chance of alternatives,im all for it in principle realist but the sad fact is there is no alternative,and i think its a little unfair to compare people in social housing with those in private rents,people whe rent privately know when they take the house that if its too big for their needs then they have to pay a subsidy,people offered social housing are told if you dont accept then you could be waiting months sometimes years to be offered another,and not everyone is fortunate to be able to fund large bonds and in most cases a months rent in advance,also if you look in the to let section of the paper more and more people are stating no dss,and before you start with the they should get a job statement,its not that easy,as im sure the thousends out there trying will tell you

Reply Posted by realist on Monday April 22 2013 at 13:22
i can see were u are comin from, however i didnt have to get option to get a council property, as i have no kids and im not on benefits, and i know some people cant afford private rent cos i am one of them, however i have no choice and never have had, i either find it or am homeless, and to me that is life we have to help our selves, and stop relying on an idiotic government to offer housing at a reduced rate i jus do not think anyone could see that as fair?? most and i say most people are living in council property for the cheap rent, and it will still be cheap, its jus that now people in a 3 bed house will be asked to pay for a those rooms, as i have to?? and i know its hard to find work in fact incredibly hard but it is not impossible if the effort is put in, if i had to start again tomo from scratch, i would find as many jobs as i needed to be able to afford my private rent as i wouldnt be offered a subsidised property, i accept this as fair, its jus that some people seem to think they are entitled to a house, low rents, free repairs, and then to top it off tax credits for good measure, i have a close friend works 30 hrs, for 850 a month and gets 970 in tax credits, has lovely private rented home and no money worries, this is jus not right at all, so if she was in council propert i would expect her to pay a fair rent and same would go for an unemployed person receiving over a 1000 pounds a month in benefits! why should they not pay x

Reply Posted by stevo on Monday April 22 2013 at 14:56
£970 a MONTH in tax credits?
I thought tax credits where a "top-up" for people with low incomes?

If she gets that much then something is definitely wrong with the TC system.
Doesn't exactly encourage people from taking a minimum wage job either if the tax credits are topping their money up by more than what a person could earn does it?

I do have to admit I don't have a clue as far as TC's are concerned.

Reply Posted by Grimble on Monday April 22 2013 at 19:42
There was a woman on a tv documentary.
She worked part time and had 3 kids.
She got just under £900 in wages but then it was topped up by over £1000 in various benefits. Then she was in subsidised social housing and did not pay full council tax. So over £2000 per month not a bad set of circumstances eh?
So should we feel sorry for the likes of her?

Reply Posted by x on Monday April 22 2013 at 17:24
in an ideal world yes i agree with you realist,but can i also add that a friend of mine as applied for over a thousend jobs since becoming unemployed,across the whole spectrum,shes been offered 2 interviews and didnt get any of those,shes still trying and applying daily for jobs and wont give up,but im afraid when your in your 50's and no formal qualifications she doesn't hold out much hope

Reply Posted by sally millard on Tuesday April 23 2013 at 11:39
You lot making negative comments are pathetic its not just Barnsley its nationwide if there is no work get off your lazy arses and relocate its not hard there is work for those who want it you can always come back to visit family etc , life does extend beyond barnsley.. stop being a something for nothing culture, you have grown up thinking its your goddam right to council housing well its not if you dont wanna pay get out and rent private and you will still only get the same amount of housing allowance for the amount of beds you need as this this is been happening for years to private tenants get ya heads out ya arses and stop whinging AND TO ANSWER THE EARLIER POST MAGGIE THATCHERS POLICIES LIVE ON HOW DUMB ARE YOU LABOUR INTRODUCED THIS YEARS AGO maybe you should go and study politics

Reply Posted by Dawn on Wednesday April 24 2013 at 06:48
Well said Sally. It's no wonder Barnsley is a laughing stock. Too many people play the victim and have a "poor me" attitude.

Reply Posted by paul on Wednesday April 24 2013 at 09:44
Yup, and we have Dugher intensifying the situation. So it's unfair on council house tennants. What about the private renters, etc, etc who have struggled for years to pay their rent. Get read Mick Dugher!

Reply Posted by Mick on Wednesday April 24 2013 at 12:58
They don't nickname The Labour goverment the "Welfare party" for nothing you know Paul.

Reply Posted by x on Wednesday April 24 2013 at 14:57
of course thatchers policies live on ,one of her main aims was to turn poor against poor and you only have to read remarks on here everyday to see its still going on the only difference is its worse now than it ever was it used to be north/south divide now its neighbour/neighbour divide and its only happening with the poorest people of this country.and as for what this government is going to do for us workers isnt it funny how none of their policies will come into being untill after the next general election.i wander how many of these policies will actually come to fruition once they've secured another 5yr term,where are they going to get money from once the benefit system has been drained i dare bet it will be the low paid workers

ipso Regulated