Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Another FtT bedroom tax case
This time saying a bedroom that is used as a dining room is not a bedroom:
http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/first-tier-tribunal-rules-that-dining.html
The second case appears to be about the sole occupant of a four bedroom property. The FTT decision accepted that they used one bedroom for purposes other than a bedroom. Would that not leave them still with two spare bedrooms? Or am I missing something?
My thoughts exactly.
And this opening sentence seems misleadingly simplistic -
“......that tenants who used a ‘bedroom’ as a dining room should not be subject to an under-occupation (commonly known as ‘the bedroom tax’) deduction from their housing benefit entitlement.”
Well…you will be if you still have more bedrooms than the size criteria determine that you require.
Perhaps she is entitled to another room for an overnight carer? Decision seems to make a difference in that now only 1 extra room instead of 2. Unfortunately it is not clear from the decision.
This is not the first instance of usage. Carole Laidlaw had a very similar case in Rochdale (dining room) and locally we have had one in Birkenhead (gym) and Liverpool (playroom for grandchildren). The references are: SC947/13/04285 and SC068/13/12831 and SC062/13/03428 - think the Statement of reasons may all be on the Nearly Legal site. It can also work against us - I had a claimant who insisted on sleeping in his very small room, leaving a larger one empty. Despite our arguments (less than 50 square feet) that it was too small to be considered a bedroom, the fact that he actually used it as such led the judge to decide against us. I feel this decision was wrong - tenants in overcrowded situations are often forced into using rooms in a way which breaks the law - but I can see that usage is an important consideration. Ruth
here’s link to nearly legal info on bedroom tax tribunal decisions -
Rutherford case - disabled child needing room for overnight carer - is due to be heard 14 May.
Also statement of reasons from another FtT decision - see -
a few more FtT decisions:
Hi in Scotland under the 1935 Housing Act the space standards ( ie section 127 in the present consolidated act) were transposed to the 1987 Housing Act - I think these are very similar if not the same as in the England and Wales Act.
In Scotland we also have an SI /1935/912 The Housing (Computation of Floor Area) Regulations (Scotland) 1935 which appears not to have been repealed. Is there such an SI in England and Wales Housing legislation?
The SI is short and details how to measure the floor area and what should be excluded when considering the floor area -this exclusion includes- areas of floor with a ceiling height of less than five foot, any other part of the floor which is occupied by a chimney breast or by a fixed bed, fixed press or other fixture, or is immediately under a sink and any part of the floor which is contained in or forms part of a wall press.
This may be helpful in suggesting to Tribunal Judges that when computing the floor area under the relevant overcrowding standards certain areas should be excluded.
The suggestion that simply because there is a bed in the room or there has been a bed in the room results in the room being designated as bedroom I think demonstrates very clearly that some HMCT Judges seem to consider that if overcrowding results from the under occupancy hb regs then overcrowding is acceptable living conditions for those reliant on means tested housing benefits but not for anyone else.
(PS In Scotland a press is a wall cupboard- just in case it causes any confusion)