Government loses 'bedroom tax' cases

[The Albion Roar]

It's only just occured to me to think about it but surely the rent on a 3 bed house is more than a 2 bed house ? If so surely the occupants already pay more for that extra room whether they use it or not ?

It's about housing benefit.

If your bedroom is considered 'spare' you have 14% of your housing benefit cut. If you have two spare rooms, you get a 25% cut.

The rules that determine what is 'spare' is pretty rigid...

• Children of both sexes under 10 would be expected to share a bedroom. If they currently do not share and they remain in separate rooms, one of their rooms will be considered as a spare bedroom.

• Children of the same gender under 16 would be expected to share a bedroom.

• Couples and adults are entitled to have bedrooms of their own.

• If a bedroom (with or without furniture) is kept free for when a child comes to stay with a parent that they do not normally live with, this room will be considered as a spare bedroom.

• Bedroom Tax allowance for a child can only be claimed by one parent, even where they share access to the child.

• Extra bedrooms for medical reasons will not be allowed and will still be affected by the rules of Bedroom Tax e.g. a couple using separate bedrooms because one of them is ill or recovering from an operation.

 

[mwrpoole]

councils are supposed to have a budget to allocate to those special cases, to mitigate the impact, but seems thats not worked as well as it should have.

.

It's called Discretionary Housing Payments and Councils do get fairly large allocations of this. They can't spend it on anything else and if they don't use it all they have to give it back to the Govt. They can also use it for things like moving expenses when/if people do relocate to smaller properties. You'd think that all Council's would spend their allowance in full rather than give any back, but they don't. Many, in all parts of the country, return unused funds to the Govt. This leads IDS to think, and perhaps understandably so, that the problems aren't quite so big as the media & others like to make out.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Interesting that the government seems so motivated to chase down the disabled and victims of domestic violence in court for their abuse of tax payers money, yet seems to take delight in allowing Google to basically pick it's own corporate tax rate and deprive the UK of hundreds of millions of pounds business tax revenue.

 

[ALBION28]

Im no Tory but cutting any benefits ,like immigration or NHS is a no no to action or even talk about. There will always be exceptions that need to be looked at. However the principle of living in social housing with say 3 beds after children have left is wrong. Nobody is throwing them out . Just asking that they accept less accomadation or if they refuse pay higher rent. It then frees up there property to family who will use every bedroom. No brainer to me

Can I just pick up on the ' no one is thowing them out'
http://http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/22/mum-who-faced-bedroom-tax-eviction-after-son-killed-himself-found-hanged-with-note-to-david-cameron-56

 

[aberllefenni]

The majority of social housing was built when, demographically, average households were much larger. This means an undersupply of smaller houses for tenants to downsize to, which, of course this Government knew when it introduced this iniquitous piece of legislation.

IDS, the Quiet Man - not bloody quiet enough, obviously.

 

[The Albion Roar]

It's called Discretionary Housing Payments and Councils do get fairly large allocations of this. They can't spend it on anything else and if they don't use it all they have to give it back to the Govt. They can also use it for things like moving expenses when/if people do relocate to smaller properties. You'd think that all Council's would spend their allowance in full rather than give any back, but they don't. Many, in all parts of the country, return unused funds to the Govt. This leads IDS to think, and perhaps understandably so, that the problems aren't quite so big as the media & others like to make out.

Some councils may well underspend, but in the last financial year (2014/15), Discretionary Housing Payments nationally went 68% over government budget.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/councils-spent-100-million-helping-6126793

 

[carlzeiss]

Just another Tory crime.

Or the drummer on the first Clash LP ?

 

[Czechmate]

I don't suppose these cases were about the majority.
Many disabled people need an extra room just to store all the stuff they need to be able to get around, it's unfair to charge them IMO.

I can't comment on these particular cases as i don't know the full story , so in special cases like you say i agree they should have the extra room for helpers , etc , but it does seem extreme for the government to take these cases to court , especially to appeal against the decision as well , so i think there may be more than meets the eye , i might be wrong .

 

[crookie]

Of course the elephant in the room with regard to the Spare Room Subsidy, or Bedroom Tax, depending on your political viewpoint is that it doesn't apply to the vast swathe of the population that it is most relevant to, the over 65's, who also, coincidentally are the demographic that votes more than other groups, and so the Govt daren't upset. Plenty of pensioners, many of them very well off, live in 3/4 bedroom council properties and use one of them. This is the real waste of housing space when we have a chronic housing shortage. Certainly there needs to be more smaller units built for people to downsize to, but ask yourselves if it is fair that only people of working age should be subject to these rules. The generation that will have no final-salary pension, huge graduate debts, and precious little chance of getting on the housing ladder because of successive Governments shameful failure to build enough housing, alongside years of massive inward migration which combined has led to soaring rents and soaring house prices, especially in London and the South East.

Social Housing is a social asset, for people in need at various times in their life. It shouldn't, IMHO give the right to taxpayer subsidised housing for life, whatever your circumstances.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Social Housing is a social asset, for people in need at various times in their life.

Social housing should be a lifestyle choice and a genuine alternative to private ownership. Not everyone wants to, or can, own their own place.

 

[drew]

FFS !!!!! , Who´s houses are they anyway ? Occupiers ? , Court´s ? No they belong to the government . Some cases i agree need an extra bedroom but the majority NO WAY .

You're right, some cases need an extra bedroom, common sense. So why didn't the Government apply that common sense when introducing the policy. Have to agree with others that in that I'm not against people being moved to more suitable accommadation depending on their changes of circumstance but the Government got it completely wrong with their one size fits all approach. Bit like the cock up with child benefit.

 

[drew]

Social housing should be a lifestyle choice and a genuine alternative to private ownership. Not everyone wants to, or can, own their own place.

Social housing should not be a lifestyle choice. It should be part of the welfare state that looks out for those that need help. If you have the means but choose not to own property then it should be the private rental sector for you, not social housing.

 

[crookie]

Social housing should be a lifestyle choice and a genuine alternative to private ownership. Not everyone wants to, or can, own their own place.

Disagree with you. Housing should be genuinely affordable, whether that be private rented, owner-occupied or social housing. I don't accept that everyone has the right to subsidised housing at the expense of other taxpayers.

 

[Garage_Doors]

There isn't the 'smaller' housing stock to move people into, so no, they can't free up the so-called family sized property.

So not using your brain on this matter is the approriate comment.

That's bollocks, there are a lot of families living in one bed flats that need a bigger place to accommodate the growing families, the couples with 3 beds places should be swapping with them, nothing to do with " housing stock"

 

[The Albion Roar]

That's bollocks, there are a lot of families living in one bed flats that need a bigger place to accommodate the growing families, the couples with 3 beds places should be swapping with them, nothing to do with " housing stock"

Could you provide first-hand empirical, peer-tested data to back up your 'bollocks' and 'nothing to do with housing stock' claim?

Meanwhile...

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/08/bedroom-tax-shortage-small-homes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ve-face-penalty-for-having-spare-8745597.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20403923

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Disagree with you. Housing should be genuinely affordable, whether that be private rented, owner-occupied or social housing. I don't accept that everyone has the right to subsidised housing at the expense of other taxpayers.

Who said it was at the expense of the tax payer? Not me. Council should be good quality stock rented out at a cost people can afford. This doesn't mean anyone has to subsidise it. Property is a fraction of the ready built market value to actually build; if you own your own place check the reinstatement cost. Mine's under a third of its market value. That means you can build and rent out at a reasonable price.

And I didn't say anyone had a right. But as it happens I do believe that as a civilised wealthy country (Cameron told us this) we should at the very least put a roof over everyone's heads.

 

[crookie]

Who said it was at the expense of the tax payer? Not me. Council should be good quality stock rented out at a cost people can afford. This doesn't mean anyone has to subsidise it. Property is a fraction of the ready built market value to actually build; if you own your own place check the reinstatement cost. Mine's under a third of its market value. That means you can build and rent out at a reasonable price.

And I didn't say anyone had a right. But as it happens I do believe that as a civilised wealthy country (Cameron told us this) we should at the very least put a roof over everyone's heads.

How does Govt/councils get funded ? Everything is taxpayer funded. Can't believe you asked that. If you are not paying market rate you are being subsidised. As I said, affordable housing should be available to everyone, and should be one of the obligations of Govt. All the last ones have failed spectacularly in this regard. But, social housing, at subsidised rent is not and should not be a 'right '. If you believe it is, should the limited supply be prioritised for the indigenous population whose ancestors arguably paid for it, or should that limited supply be handed over to immigrants who have paid nothing towards this scarce resource, as seems to be the case where I live ?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

How does Govt/councils get funded ? Everything is taxpayer funded. Can't believe you asked that. If you are not paying market rate you are being subsidised.

Technically housing gets funded initially by government but then it's an asset with a steady revenue. The trick is to charge a little more than it costs then you're not losing any money.

And no, you're not subsidising if you're not charging full market rate. You're maybe not extracting as much as you can....but you're not subsidising it. If you're making a small profit as I point out you are not supporting it financially ergo not subsidising it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Technically housing gets funded initially by government but then it's an asset with a steady revenue. The trick is to charge a little more than it costs then you're not losing any money.

And no, you're not subsidising if you're not charging full market rate. You're maybe not extracting as much as you can....but you're not subsidising it. If you're making a small profit as I point out you are not supporting it financially ergo not subsidising it.

you do make a good point about the actual cost of building property (btw the difference is the price of land), however dont deny its a subsidy. if the state is providing support to offer a price below market rate, that is by definition a subsidy. you are also saying it should be a right, if one can choose to turn up to the council and ask for a home, thats infering a universal right to housing (rather than a welfare provision for those unable to support themselves)

 

[1066familyman]

you do make a good point about the actual cost of building property (btw the difference is the price of land), however dont deny its a subsidy. if the state is providing support to offer a price below market rate, that is by definition a subsidy.

You've pulled this semantics rabbit out of the hat in several debates I've had with you, so I wonder if I could enlist your help with this one?:

We receive housing benefit as situation and circumstance meant we missed the property boat before it sailed. We are forced to rent in the private sector due to the lack of rich parents to tap for a mortgage deposit and the lack of supply of social housing. My wife has had to re-train (long story) and is currently in the third year of her degree course. The housing benefit people insist on counting the student loan as income.

My question is, how does that work exactly? A loan, by definition, is something that has to be paid back, so how can it count as income? Technically she may never pay it back of course if she's unlucky enough not to find work that pays enough to trigger repayment, but if she does end up repaying it, which obviously we hope she will, can we then back date a claim for under payment of housing benefit? I very much doubt it somehow.