Bedroom Tax

[Pamela]

Putting this here as not many people look in the benefits section.

Bedroom Tax... the benefit cut.

As some people will know that from the 1st of April people in social housing who are deemed as being under-occupied will receive 14% less Housing Benefit for having a spare room and 25% cut for having a 2 extra rooms. There is no legal sized room for this.

You may also know it is a 2 tier system. People who have private landlords and receive housing benefit are given an allowance from the council for their needs. What they are given for a 1 bedroom allowance they can use for a 2 bedroom. If that 2 bedroom is within the allowance then they don't pay the BT (Bedroom Tax) like those with social landlords as it's covered.

What I'm looking to ask is in some situations where people are subject to the BT if their landlord was a private landlord they would have less extra to pay for exactly the same house as the government would pay more than they would to the social landlord. In one situation the private renter on exactly same rent on a like for like basis, their monthly with the Local authority weekly rent all calculated only have to pay the Private Landlord £20 extra a month where as the Local authority tenant has to £44 a month for exactly the same house for exactly the same rent. That is £24 extra they have to pay.

As you can tell this doesn't seem very fair, does anyone know of any legal way this can be challenged if possible? A law?

Also, many of the tenants with extra rooms did take their homes with the knowledge that they were covered and now many are being hit with BT and there is no smaller houses to move to. The government survey in 2010 acknowledged this. If they move to a private landlord in most cases it will cost the government more money. The government also acknowledged in the survey it could cost the tax payer more money.

Is there anyway the law could be challenged with them just .... landing.... it on people. People not knowing or being aware when signing for their tenancy (they were entitled to) this was going to be the case. Making a decision to go private you would know the rules before hand.

[Hairyloon]

It will only be a matter of time before someone is forced to take a lodger without a proper veto, and gets raped &/or murdered.
That'll get the Daily Wail up in arms... especially if the lodger is an immigrant or a Muslim.

[stu1985]

Judicial review?

[Booboo]

The bedroom tax is aimed at tenants in council and housing association properties who are of working age, on certain benefits and living in under occupied accommodation.

As I said before, families living in cramped conditions need those properties.

[Slartibartfast]

As I said before, families living in cramped conditions need those properties.

I agree. Using a moderate financial cost as the change driver seems quite sensible - people who appreciate and use the extra rooms can pay a little more to keep them. In the interests of fairness, public housing providers should also make sure there are trade-down options available - I read that in some areas it isn't easy at all to move to a smaller home.

[Hairyloon]

The bedroom tax is aimed at tenants in council and housing association properties who are of working age, on certain benefits and living in under occupied accommodation.

Aiming yes, but I wouldn't trust this government to hit the side of a barn at ten short paces.

[Pamela]

The bedroom tax is aimed at tenants in council and housing association properties who are of working age, on certain benefits and living in under occupied accommodation.

As I said before, families living in cramped conditions need those properties.

Yes I've noted you have said this before but this was not asking of an opinion I was asking about challenging the law.

Btw, I disagree with your opinion in general as many people don't have any place to go to. People CAN NOT downsize as there is NO smaller properties to go to. It's all over the papers and if you phone the councils around the country they will also tell you this. If they go private then it will cost the tax payer MORE. Forcing people out of their homes is not a way to be freeing up property as people have done their time on the housing list to be given a property they were entitled to. People have invested in their homes. This affects many working people and not just people who are unemployed. Plus you are taking people away from their community.

There is also medical reasons people can't just take in lodgers as Slarts has said however under UC there could be a lot of scams with the lodger situation.

[Pamela]

Judicial review?

Stu what is that?

[Pamela]

It will only be a matter of time before someone is forced to take a lodger without a proper veto, and gets raped &/or murdered.
That'll get the Daily Wail up in arms... especially if the lodger is an immigrant or a Muslim.

Have thought that too but for those who do want to take a lodger proper vetting would be the way to go but many of those tenants are not going to know much about doing all of that, rules and laws etc. Their rights.

[Pamela]

As I said before, families living in cramped conditions need those properties.

I agree. Using a moderate financial cost as the change driver seems quite sensible - people who appreciate and use the extra rooms can pay a little more to keep them. In the interests of fairness, public housing providers should also make sure there are trade-down options available - I read that in some areas it isn't easy at all to move to a smaller home.

Not very sensible to the person on sick and who is not feeling fit enough to move. Many people have been in their properties for 30 years or so and invested thousands of pounds in the property, (when in employment) forcing people out is not the way to do it. This is just a social cleansing.

Unfortunately there is no allowances in this Act for anyone who is stuck between a rock and a hard place as you suggest but the government knew this when they put this law through that there was not enough smaller properties.

However, for those who chose to stay, as I have said more is paid for from the government on the 2 tier system for the same property at the same price if they are under occupying. Any comments on that? That must be discrimination, surely?