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

This should not be a situation which is allowed to happen as we have a housing crisis, it also should not be an option to refuse to move to an available smaller property, it should be mandatory at the earliest opportunity

yes with exceptions to disabled family members and tenants that have been in the same property for x amount of years.

No, but help should be provided for the tenant to move somewhere suitable so that this does not happen.

The government should automatically remove people from houses where there are more bedrooms than they require.

If a council property is underoccupied the tenants should be required to move to a smaller property. If one is unavailable it is the governments responsibility therefore they should not have to pay extra.

Only if the house is significantly smaller than it needs to be for a family. if bedrooms are tiny and cannot accommodate the household and there is no other option to solve the situation then benefits may be lent out

No, but housing should on a ‘need’ basis and re-assessed yearly so people can move to their ‘need’ level.

No/Maybe - The housing association should be fined for not finding or acquiring suitable accommodation. Fine the tenant only if tenant refuses to downsize given a suitable offer.

Yes but only if they refuse to move to a smaller property with the exception being they can stay in that home if they have been there for ten years or more

Yes, but only with certain exceptions, such as disabled family members or they refuse to move to an available smaller property etc.

We should have good quality housing and if the tenant refuses a social house they should go to the back of the queue. If a house is clearly too big then this should be reviewed

There should be a contract that states when they no longer need all the bedrooms they are given something smaller, to meet the current need. Social housing should not be seen as a right to reside for life

Yes. However length of time at a property should be a factor. Asking someone to leave the family home now the children have grown might be a little unkind. Based on demand

Yes, but only if there is a suitable smaller alternative in an area close enough to their place of work, etc.

Yes but with exception for those with disabled family members or if they refuse to move to an available smaller property

Only if there is no valid reason to have the additional space. Being able to host visiting family members or have the option of separate sleeping arrangements if you are a couple living in a multi-bedroom property should be a right. Forcing couples to have to sleep in the same room especially due to ill health is not good.

Yes only if the relevant house is in the vicinity that they already live and not to a different area

No but social housing, like the benefits systems needs an overhaul - currently people seem to have more children to get bigger properties and claim more benefits - this is unfair to the children, those of us that work to support ourselves and the people who genuinely need support (disabled and elderly people) and would look after the properties they move into.

Yes because private renting is more expensive but certain disabilities should be excepted if more room is required for equipment or live in carers

It should depend on each individuals situation, as to the amount of benefits that they are allocated.

No, but priority should be given to those who need a bigger property and incentives should be given to help them move.

Yes but only if it’s a newer house fit them. If it’s been their family home for 20 plus years it would be hard mentally do it should be on an individual circumstances.

It would depend on circumstances. If a person feels that it is their home they are more likely to care for that home so moving out should be incentivised not punished

Not if they have lived there since before the bedroom rules came in as I do not believe they should be forced to leave their home.

No, first the housing association should be investigated as to if there is something suspicious going on.

No, in theory this is supposed to target those wealthy people with excess space but often takes regular income residents out of their homes to make profit for corporations or offer the building to someone who has been here 5 minutes

Should depend on cost not rooms as some places with more bedrooms may be cheaper than places with less rooms

Yes, but make exceptions for families with disabled members, carers or other situations which may affect space needed.

People who have lived in the same property prior to the year 2000 should be exempt from paying bedroom tax.

Yes unless there is a medical reason that will impact the wellbeing such as those with dementia and other mental illness.

No, because the extra room may be used for utility and storage purposes, especially for those working at home

No if they lose a family member they should be able to stay in their home. New tenants should be qualified to get a suitable residence.

This is something that depends on individual circumstances; in some cases there are not available properties for people to move to. I do not support needlessly penalising individuals and it may be harmful to relocate people without just cause if they have lived in an area for a long time. However, if available properties exist people should be given the option to move into housing more suited to their circumstances.

The benefits system needs to be reformed entirely so that is income+wealth based and not based on an individual’s situation.

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.

Get off benefits is the key

Only if the number of bedrooms greatly outweighs the number of occupants, no disabled people live at the property, there is need for their property by others and a refusal to move to a suitable smaller property

Housing Benefit should be paid direct to the Landlord/Housing Association instead of relying on benefit recipients paying from money received

The council have properties with more rooms than tenants- but are not moving them to other houses when they ask. So the council in my opinion need to do more to make sure houses are suited to those living in it.

Tenants in social housing should not be in properties with more bedrooms that occupants with the exception of split families where children come to stay.

No, people should be allowed a spare bedroom. If they have several spare rooms, they could be asked to downsize.

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.

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

No , as I feel this may effect elderly people who lived in there home for most there lives , also may put people into poverty .

Yes but only if they have been living in that property for under 10 years, any longer then they should automatically be exempt from paying any bedroom tax.

They shouldn’t receive benefits.

It's more subtle than that

No, Just because it's a "bedroom", doesn't mean the rooms primary focus is for sleeping, it could be used as an office room or recreation room.

No, but they should be encouraged to move to a smaller home in the same area when one becomes available

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.

Yes, but lower how much they lose

It depends on individual circumstances

Things would currently stay as they are, unless a petition was successful in getting a vote via Liquid Democracy.

Only if they earn above the average wage and do not fit into exceptions like students, larger families and the disabled.

No, these are peoples homes. They should be offered the chance to move to a smaller property and schemes should be set up to find appropriate swaps but they shouldn't lose benefits

If already in a property and the household number reduces allow for a least one additional room for guests. Why should a person on benefits be penalised because of their changed circumstances?

Yes, but they should be able to rent extra rooms tax-free

no unless house was chosen to be large

I think that disabled people and the elderly should have benefits in both housing associations and council housing.

no, as long as you only have one spare room for guest or kids coming back

Abolish landlords, including the state.

Yes. They should move to a smaller property

Policy does not encourage what it was set out to encourage ie people living in the right size of property for their household as their is not the availability of the right size of properties in the areas required thus encouraging movement to right sized properties

They should be relocated to make use of limited resources better.

Only if they refuse to smaller satisfactory housing

Yes, based on whether or not they reach a particular income threshold; those in council housing with excess rooms, for example, would not be penalised - only those who own property with spare rooms

Effectively, yes but only to those who own property, never those who rent. By extension, those who own property should be charged for failing to let rooms, as this would aid in the provision of affordable housing

There should be no benefits

No, people living in homes with more bedrooms than occupants are already subject to a deduction from benefits based on empty rooms

maybe , but on a case by case basis only. Rules on bedrooms are currently too strict

Yes, but with exception for those with disabled family members and only if they’re refuse to move to an available smaller property

No benefits system,get rid of it.If they can't afford it let them sleep in the streets and bushes.If not get a job and start paying rent.

Yes, I would decrease the amount of benefits paid if there were more rooms than occupants in the household.

Only for new claimants but there are not enough properties regardless of occupancy. No-one should be forced to move or have to relocat to another local authority.

They should be rehoused to suit their needs

people should not be penalised by being forced to move from their homes they have looked after and perhaps brought up a family when family circumstances change through no fault of their own. But people should be respectfully asked to seriously consider a change in housing if it would benefit another family or group of people. And the personal benefits of moving should be emphasised.

No, but reform social housing to ensure that there are houses for families that need the extra space.

Tenants with larger properties than they need should be encouraged to downsize, but not punished for not wanting to move.

Yes, but provide more smaller housing.

Yes, but with exceptions for those who have a disabled family member, tenants who are receiving state pensions, diplomats and foreign service workers, members of the armed forces and people who foster children.

Remove benefits

No, Introduce a land value tax to reduce landlordism and incentivise the formation of housing co-ops and collectives

Yes, but with exception for those with disabled family members, only if they refuse to move to an available smaller property

Yes, only if they refuse to move to an available smaller property but with exception for those with disabled family members

Yes but only if they refuse to move to an available smaller property and has no impact on their ability to care for a child or disabled family member.

No, but reform social housing to ensure that there are houses for families that need the extra space .

No, but in future the local authorities should make better decisions in where they put people. Is it fair to disrupt the lives of people who had little, if any, say in the first instance?

No, build more council property so it's not as scarce

Local Council should not restrict or limit benefits because the council put those tenants in these properties.

Yes, but with exception to those with disabilities in the household, and with a lower reduction in support

Abolish private property

No this is a very punitive policy

I don't have a particular stance on this issue.

The value of benefits should vary based on the average cost of living in the area, the size of the house shouldn't matter

Yes, but with an exception of those with disabled family members and only if tenants refuse to move to a smaller property

Neither yes or no - decision to be made on a case by case basis