Should tenants receive less benefits if they live in a housing association or council property with more bedrooms than occupants?

No, depends on duration they have been residents and extended family situation. i.e. grandparents need spare rooms for visiting family, parents of university students retaining the child's room and parents who don't have custody of children but need to make provision for. Disabled people may need spare rooms for overnight carers.

No if they are receiving disabled benefits. Many disabled need spare room but dont need overnight care everynight and are suffering and should not be forced to pay bedroom tax. Especially those suffering mental health who need a spare room for aomeone to stay to support mental breakdown

Yes, however should actively receive help in the meantime from their housing association or council to downsize to a different property suitable to their needs. Abolish the bedroom tax.

Hard to see a simple answer to this one that wouldn’t either harshly penalise edge cases (eg where a household member has died) or give too much leeway to pisstakers. Would have to be case-by-case.

Only if they're not using the rooms, at all. Some people have a lot of things that need space and it's unfair to assume they should either have barely anything to qualify or get rid of things.

Currently housing is poorly regulated and such rulrs will harm people's lives.

Benefits should be reduced when there are more than 2 spare bedrooms

Get off benefits is the key

No, but they should have to move into smaller property (as long as local) if under occupying by more than one bedroom or if living in ground floor flat or bungalow and under occupying when not disabled. However, financial compensation should be given to cover moving, travel to view property and redecorating costs, and practical help with packing and unpacking should be offered to those who are disabled and also childcare for moving day. Any adaptions for disability or upgrades to provide equivalent facilities to what they already have should be done in advance of moving. Tenant must not be financially or practically disadvantaged for travel to work or school.

Yes, but with exceptions

Yes, but only if suitable accommodation is made available and they are not disabled

My opinion is to complex for any of these answers

Yes, but only if they refuse to move to an available smaller property within a reasonable vicinity of their current home.

No. There needs to be much more social housing available for a variety of differing needs,

If its 2+ more spare bedrooms than yes but 1 extra bedroom they should keep the property.

No opinion on this - it is extremely context dependent and unfair to not provide such context.

We should not have this kind of situation. If people are relying on the state to house them then there should not be spare bedrooms and children should share with siblings. Only if there is a medical reasons should this rule be varied.
We have a chronic shortage of social housing and need to ensure that decent, basic accommodation is available to all who need it but that luxury should be something that people work for

Yes, but only if there is a not a suitable smaller property available and there should be exceptions if one or more of the residents is disabled.

Regardless, I do not support benefit programmes

We should help the poor under a Fascist like Monarchy. Allow some to shelter if they have too.

No, they should get benefits which are parallel to how many people live there

No, all tenants should receive equal benefits.

Any surplus more than extra bedroom per tenant should be taxed proportionately

All benefits should be abolished.

They should be forced to move to a smaller property

Yes, if they refuse to move to a smaller property & with disabled care room exemption.

Yes but with exemption for those with disabled family members or for separated families

Family of mother stay home of income benefits can hold more on and on smaller property homes is most of country decrease incidents

Yes but with exception for those with disabled family members and if said tenants refuse to a more appropriate property within a 5 mile radius.

Yes, but only if they refuse to move to an available smaller property or allow another tenant to use the bedroom.

Yes Under occupying might be discouraged. But should be consodered case by case, dignified support to move to agreed home

no but we should all be given council housing if we cannot afford it

Such tenants should be relocated at public expense if the property is required for larger families etc; only if such tenants refuse to move or if there are disabled family members present, should any exemptions be given.

No, provided that there is a reason for doing so (such as disabled family members).

Yes, but only if that property is needed elsewhere and they refuse to move

Yes, but lower how much they lose

No, because we don't have the right mix of accommodation so people are penalised through no fault of their own.

Yes, unless they need the extra bedrooms for children who live with another parent to be able to visit.

Yes, but only if they refuse to move to an available nearby smaller property

No, but they should be encouraged to move to a smaller property where possible unless they moved into their current one with the right amount of people for rooms.

No, more housing association properties should be built.

Yes, but set it to set it to more bedrooms than the occupants + 1 to allow for guests or family visits

No, tenants should not be living in council property that has more bedrooms than required

No but they should have to pay tax on each spare room

Yes but only if they refuse to move to smaller property with exception of those with disabled family members

Provide incentive to downsize

Housing (social) should be allocated yearly to the most needed people. If people want bigger then I they buy themselves

It should depend on their personal circumstances

Do away with counsil housing all together. They can go work and pay their own way.