Bedroom Tax is dead (possibly)

[osdset]

The bedroom tax is dead. I’ll repeat that in case your eyes deceive you reader, the bedroom tax is dead!

There was a hugely significant appeal win in South Wales I discussed and posted about earlier and I called the bedroom tax a lesser spotted Dodo. My apologies reader the bedroom tax is ‘deader’ than that upon reading the actual judgment!

http://speye.wordpress.com/2014/02/0...ead-heres-why/

In a nutshell, a first tier tribunal in Bolton has ruled that a bedroom can only defined as such if it's used or furnished as a bedroom, a spare room used as a study or art room are not bedrooms irrespective of size.

 

 

The implications for LA's if everyone effected appeals is that they will have to inspect every property to ascertain the amount of actual bedrooms there are, rather than relying on info supplied by landlords or tenancy agreements, something LA's have not got the resources to do.

 

 

It will be interesting to see how HM Gov react to this.

[tezza1234]

Ridiculous im sorry but it is, i personally was in favor of the bedroom tax, In theory a good idea, that judgement is stupid.

[osdset]

Ridiculous im sorry but it is, i personally was in favor of the bedroom tax, In theory a good idea, that judgement is stupid.

No it isn't, LA's should have inspected all properties instead of taking the word of landlords, and regarding tenancy agreements listing the amount of bedrooms as verbatim.

[tezza1234]

No because all this is going to do is make everyone call there 2nd and 3rd bedrooms offices or art rooms ect... to get out of paying it.

 

The principle behind a bedroom tax was a good one and was working, after all working/elderly and disabled people were exempt from it.

[osdset]

No because all this is going to do is make everyone call there 2nd and 3rd bedrooms offices or art rooms ect... to get out of paying it.

 

Like the wealthy do with money? Stash it away in offshore accounts to avoid paying tax. No difference in my book.

Besides if HM Gov legislate on the hoof and get caught out they only have themselves to blame.

[Fuzzgin]

No because all this is going to do is make everyone call there 2nd and 3rd bedrooms offices or art rooms ect... to get out of paying it.

 

The principle behind a bedroom tax was a good one and was working, after all working/elderly and disabled people were exempt from it.

 

Working and disabled people were never exempt from it.

[tezza1234]

Like the wealthy do with money? Stash it away in offshore accounts to avoid paying tax. No difference in my book.

Besides if HM Gov legislate on the hoof and get caught out they only have themselves to blame.

 

Ok but all you are saying now is 2 wrongs make a right. I am a HA tenant myself, I am male, married with 2 children and have a 2 bed flat. I work and so did my mrs before 2nd child 3 months ago. I am on the ground and see what happens, i personally really appreciate subsidized rent which allow me to live where i do, there are 12 flats in my block, and id say 2/3rds of the other tenants don't appreciate it one bit.

 

Id give anything for a garden but my options are to rent private and give up HA property or exchange, this bedroom tax meant a exchange was slightly more realistic as it forced some peoples hand. Or i could just bash out a few more kids and force a move because that is responsible isnt it.

[osdset]

Ok but all you are saying now is 2 wrongs make a right

A very old and well worn cliche, however it does not detract from the fact that there exists two wrongs. HM Gov sanctions one of them, and ignores the other.

[tezza1234]

I like the way how you ignored the rest of the post which also had valid points raised.

[osdset]

I like the way how you ignored the rest of the post which also had valid points raised.

Because your post referred to this

Like the wealthy do with money? Stash it away in offshore accounts to avoid paying tax. No difference in my book.

And made no reference to this

Besides if HM Gov legislate on the hoof and get caught out they only have themselves to blame.

[tezza1234]

ahh but i did reference that by saying 2 wrongs don't make a right

[estellyn]

Just to clarify, having read the judgement, the real issue wasn't how the rooms were decorated but the fact that they were only big enough for 'half a person' (a child under 10). It's about the room size and that the size means it cannot be used as a permanent adult bedroom, and so in this case are used as an art room and study instead.

 

 

Also, as a first tier decision it is not precedent, and will undoubtedly be appealed by the council involved to the upper tier, which can set precedent.

 

 

Though it is certainly wise to get an appeal registered if paying bedroom tax for a room that would be considered only big enough for a child under 10, as soon as this is appealed to the upper tier, all first tier appeals will be put on hold pending a decision to decide precedent.

 

 

This decision certainly doesn't mean that you can set your spare room up as a study to avoid bedroom tax - but it does mean that if your spare room is a box room, and isn't used or usable as a full time adult bedroom, then there might be some hope.

[2ltr16valve]

I've Appealed to my council on this exact point and be refused saying they do not acknowledge space standard in regard to housing benefits.

I have appealed again and am awaiting them to reply with either a favourable award or to send it to tribunal.

[ims21]

I have removed a very offensive post from this thread and the reactions to it following it being reported to the Site Team.

 

I hope those that did respond to it understand why their posts were removed also.

 

Thanks.

[2ltr16valve]

I have removed a very offensive post from this thread and the reactions to it following it being reported to the Site Team.

 

I hope those that did respond to it understand why their posts were removed also.

 

Thanks.

 

No worries.

[antone]

ahh but i did reference that by saying 2 wrongs don't make a right

 

It's trivially true, of course, that two wrongs don't make a right. But that doesn't really excuse what's going on here. The government is applying the thumbscrews to the poorest people in society while allowing the wealthiest to stick two fingers up at their social obligation to pay their share. You can hardly blame people for drawing attention to this duplicity.

 

Is it a "wrong" that some council tenants have larger properties than they need? Yes, perhaps. And with careful planning and consideration, it might even have been possible to right that wrong - over a period of several years and with sensible public housing policy. But as the current policy stands, it will push the poorest people into the private sector (where, of course, they will claim HB at higher rates) while reserving social housing for the better off. I struggle to see why this makes sense.

[Nystagmite]

About time this was scrapped. Whilst I can see the logic behind it, it was thought about badly.

[impecunious]

Well, I've appealed my council's decision to impose the "bedroom tax" on my 2nd upstairs room which is used as a craft/art/sewing room and not a bedroom, regardless of its size.

 

 

I rent the house from my daughter and son-in-law on a purely commercial basis. I'm loathe to leave as my family would rather I lived here and looked after their house with respect rather than let it out again to totally unsuitable private tenants who were placed through a letting agency and left the house in a total state of disrepair.

 

 

Additionally, as I originally gave my daughter the deposit to buy the house, I feel it very much a family home and I'm happy to live here for as long as my daughter and her husband allow me.

 

 

Let's see what the Council response is .. nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

 

The imposition of the "bedroom tax" adversely impacts on the lives of so many people and families. If we were first of all given the opportunity to move into smaller accommodation (if any actually do exist .. and how do we afford removal costs, deposits, first month rent in advance????) and refused, then yes sanctions could be brought into play. But, the "bedroom tax" as it is grossly unfair and is imposed regardless of financial circumstances.

 

 

Let's hope it's killed off .... thank you Scotland for showing the way.

 

 

Imp

[reallymadwoman]

Well, I've appealed my council's decision to impose the "bedroom tax" on my 2nd upstairs room which is used as a craft/art/sewing room and not a bedroom, regardless of its size.

 

 

I rent the house from my daughter and son-in-law on a purely commercial basis. I'm loathe to leave as my family would rather I lived here and looked after their house with respect rather than let it out again to totally unsuitable private tenants who were placed through a letting agency and left the house in a total state of disrepair.

 

 

Additionally, as I originally gave my daughter the deposit to buy the house, I feel it very much a family home and I'm happy to live here for as long as my daughter and her husband allow me.

 

 

Let's see what the Council response is .. nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

 

The imposition of the "bedroom tax" adversely impacts on the lives of so many people and families. If we were first of all given the opportunity to move into smaller accommodation (if any actually do exist .. and how do we afford removal costs, deposits, first month rent in advance????) and refused, then yes sanctions could be brought into play. But, the "bedroom tax" as it is grossly unfair and is imposed regardless of financial circumstances.

 

 

Let's hope it's killed off .... thank you Scotland for showing the way.

 

 

Imp

 

I thought bedroom tax only applied to social housing, not private rented?

[antone]

I thought bedroom tax only applied to social housing, not private rented?

 

That's correct, yes, but private renters have been subject to rules regarding the maximum number of bedrooms and allowable rent since LHA was introduced in, I think, the late 1990s.

[estellyn]

That's correct, yes, but private renters have been subject to rules regarding the maximum number of bedrooms and allowable rent since LHA was introduced in, I think, the late 1990s.

 

 

 

True, but as far as I can see there is no basis for appeal, unless you're appealing the number of bedrooms allowed for your household, because the basis of the limitation is different to bedroom tax. In bedroom tax, you're being directly penalised on your housing benefit for the number of bedrooms you have above that which is considered appropriate, regardless of the amount of rent charged. Whereas for private renters, an 'allowance' is established according to household size, regardless of the number of bedrooms.

 

 

I'd be interested to know how impecunious has worded her appeal?

[antone]

True, but as far as I can see there is no basis for appeal, unless you're appealing the number of bedrooms allowed for your household, because the basis of the limitation is different to bedroom tax. In bedroom tax, you're being directly penalised on your housing benefit for the number of bedrooms you have above that which is considered appropriate, regardless of the amount of rent charged. Whereas for private renters, an 'allowance' is established according to household size, regardless of the number of bedrooms.

 

 

I'd be interested to know how impecunious has worded her appeal?

 

Agreed - serves me right for skim reading.

[estellyn]

Agreed - serves me right for skim reading.

 

 

No problem, I'm generally the queen of skim reading!

[worried33]

I am half in favour of bedroom tax and half not.

 

The current government are perfectly correct in that it brings housing benefit policies in line with the private sector, someone in the private sector if they have excess rooms WILL have their housing benefit deducted very simple and consistent.

 

I am am also against it tho because in my view it is wrong to change the rules after someone has been given an entitlement. So this should have been something only affecting new claimants. Or at thevery least there should have been something like a 3+ year grace period. Plus if nowhere to rehouse people, they should be excempt.

 

In my view if the bedroom tax gets scrapped, in interests of fairness the private rental housing benefit rules should be changed to matched, and in addition noone seems to be legally challenging the much harsher reduction of entitlement for 25-34 year olds.

 

The obvious issue is a imbalance of housing, single bed social housing seems extremely under supplied as families have always been given priority.

[worried33]

It's trivially true, of course, that two wrongs don't make a right. But that doesn't really excuse what's going on here. The government is applying the thumbscrews to the poorest people in society while allowing the wealthiest to stick two fingers up at their social obligation to pay their share. You can hardly blame people for drawing attention to this duplicity.

 

Is it a "wrong" that some council tenants have larger properties than they need? Yes, perhaps. And with careful planning and consideration, it might even have been possible to right that wrong - over a period of several years and with sensible public housing policy. But as the current policy stands, it will push the poorest people into the private sector (where, of course, they will claim HB at higher rates) while reserving social housing for the better off. I struggle to see why this makes sense.

 

probably one of the hidden aims, as it helps the BTL market which in turn helpls that all important house market.