Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Bedroom tax: any luck shedding bedrooms?
Hi
Locally some advisers are advising long term tenants in exceptional circumstances who have ‘spare’ rooms to request their landlord consider reclassifying the size of their property. So far we’ve had little feedback on how this is being received by landlords.
It would be really helpful to hear from anyone who has any experience of success with this tactic.
Thanks
Jana
Most landlords have seemingly ruled out redesignating properties as having fewer bedrooms, as a way of helping its tenants avoid the bedroom tax. In an interesting article in Inside Housing, Professor Steve Wilcox counters the view that to redesignate will lead to a loss of rental income.
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/reclassification-‘will-not-hit-rent-hard’/6527075.article
‘Ten lessons landlords should learn about the bedroom tax’ from Shelter Cymru’s Jennie Bibbings -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2013/may/28/lessons-landlords-bedroom-tax
‘Can Reclassifying Property Size Help?’ - FAQs from Chartered Institute of Housing -
and research from False Economy says that tens of thousands could be made homeless due to shortage of smaller properties -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/27/bedroom-tax-poor-homeless?INTCMP=SRCH
‘Any luck shedding bedrooms?’
Now there’s a thought! Simply fill the spare room with lawnmowers, half empty tins of paint, jars of screws, out-of-date packets of seeds and other assorted diy and garden tools, and argue that it is, in fact, a shed.
well it seems Leeds CC is to reclassify bedrooms, in over 800 of its properties, as non-specific “rooms”
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/general-news/when-is-a-bedroom-not-a-bedroom-when-it-s-in-a-leeds-council-house-1-5717223
‘Any luck shedding bedrooms?’
Now there’s a thought! Simply fill the spare room with lawnmowers, half empty tins of paint, jars of screws, out-of-date packets of seeds and other assorted diy and garden tools, and argue that it is, in fact, a shed.
Sounds like our spare bedroom! I think you have to show that the room is used for an essential need which cannot be met elsewher and because of this cannot be used for sleeping.
As you may be aware by now, Lord Fraud has written to Councils threatening HB subsidy penalties in the number of bedrooms is reduced.
Local Authority Chief Executives
Re-designation of properties and the removal of the Spare Room Subsidy
As you may be aware there have been a number of reported cases of local authorities re-designating their properties, without reducing the rent to reflect the loss of a bedroom. Such action could lead to incorrect Housing Benefit subsidy claims being submitted to my Department at the end of the financial year.
In principle my Department has no objections to re-designating properties where there is good cause to do so, for example where a property is significantly adapted to cater for a disabled persons needs. However, we would expect the designation of a property to be consistent for both Housing Benefit and rent purposes. Blanket redesignations without a clear and justifiable reason, and without reductions in rent, are inappropriate and do not fall within the spirit of the policy.
Between 2000 and 2010 expenditure had doubled in cash terms, reaching £21 billion. Unreformed, by 2014-15 Housing Benefit would cost over £25 billion. By removing the Spare Room Subsidy £500 million a year can be saved through greater efficiency and better use of social housing stock. It is therefore vital that local authorities adhere to their statutory responsibility to implement this policy on behalf of the Department.
I would like to stress that if it is shown properties are being re-designated inappropriately this will be viewed very seriously. If the Department has cause to believe this is the case we will commission an independent audit to ascertain whether correct and appropriate procedures have been followed. I wish to state clearly that these audits would be separate from the subsidy audits already undertaken, which carry out sample checks on the assessment of Housing Benefit.
Where it is found that a local authority has re-designated properties without reasonable grounds and without reducing rents, my Department would consider either restricting or not paying their Housing Benefit subsidy.
Lord Freud
Minister for Welfare Reform
Is that putting the blame on the LA as landlord or as HB administrator? Could your department refuse to act on the bedroom number changes?
If it’s the latter then it seems to be expecting the HB department to be examining all claims for changes in the number of bedrooms and, presumably, by extension examining the number of bedrooms in all new claims.
There is no reason why this should only apply to LA properties of course as other social landlords may do the same. Would the same penalties apply?
In an interesting variation, if a private landlord redefines the number of bedrooms in a property there is no effect on HB, as it’s the family size that determines the LHA limit. At what point would it be advantageous for a LA to let a property to a private landlord (could be a not for profit) to rent out so that under-occupation wouldn’t be an issue?
[ Edited: 20 Jun 2013 at 05:08 pm by Gareth Morgan ]I have a classic bedroom tax victim, for whom I am appealing against the bedroom tax being applied to him, and at the same time asking his landlord (a housing association) to redesignate his flat as having one bedroom.
He is a single man in a (supposedly) two bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a purpose-built block. He was working until he got lung cancer. Now he is terminally ill (has been given a DS1500 by his GP). He is expected to a pay a £13 per week shortfall in his housing benefit and £5 per week towards his council tax, out of his ESA. He will shortly be getting higher rate care DLA under special rules, which will help - but that’s not the point. DLA is supposed to pay for his care, his transport costs to his chemotherapy sessions in hospital, and his higher heating bills.
He has never used his second “bedroom” as a bedroom since he moved in, it has always been a dining room, and it is furnished with table and chairs and a cupboard to keep the crockery and cutlery in. I have appealed on the basis that he has a one bedroom flat, with a livingroom/kitchenette and dining room; not a second bedroom. I have asked his landlord to redesignate the property also on that basis. It will be interesting to see the responses.
This fifth-floor nominally two-bedroom flat will never become available for an overcrowded family even if the client wasn’t too ill to move somewhere smaller, because fifth floor flats are considered unsuitable for children. Besides, the housing association usually allocates flats in this block to people over age 55. Not that I ever believed the Tories assertion, that the point of the bedroom tax was to encourage people to move and free up larger properties for overcrowded families, you understand. But this case illustrates how remarkably senseless the policy is. It throws another problem at people who suffer a sudden misfortune (like getting cancer) that stops them from working, even when they are living in a property that no family is likely to accept.
(By the way, my local authority is one of the onces that is refusing to pay any DHPs to people who get DLA because it considers that with DLA “they have enough to live on”. But that’s yet another issue.)
If he was working before ill was he claiming HB? If not, remember that no reduction for 13 weeks. I suggest you also contact Macmillan Cancer Care. Individually they may help financially, but as a campaigning organisation I am sure they would be interested to hear about this case.
I have a classic bedroom tax victim, for whom I am appealing against the bedroom tax being applied to him, and at the same time asking his landlord (a housing association) to redesignate his flat as having one bedroom.
He is a single man in a (supposedly) two bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a purpose-built block. He was working until he got lung cancer. Now he is terminally ill (has been given a DS1500 by his GP). He is expected to a pay a £13 per week shortfall in his housing benefit and £5 per week towards his council tax, out of his ESA. He will shortly be getting higher rate care DLA under special rules, which will help - but that’s not the point. DLA is supposed to pay for his care, his transport costs to his chemotherapy sessions in hospital, and his higher heating bills.
He has never used his second “bedroom” as a bedroom since he moved in, it has always been a dining room, and it is furnished with table and chairs and a cupboard to keep the crockery and cutlery in. I have appealed on the basis that he has a one bedroom flat, with a livingroom/kitchenette and dining room; not a second bedroom. I have asked his landlord to redesignate the property also on that basis. It will be interesting to see the responses.This fifth-floor nominally two-bedroom flat will never become available for an overcrowded family even if the client wasn’t too ill to move somewhere smaller, because fifth floor flats are considered unsuitable for children. Besides, the housing association usually allocates flats in this block to people over age 55. Not that I ever believed the Tories assertion, that the point of the bedroom tax was to encourage people to move and free up larger properties for overcrowded families, you understand. But this case illustrates how remarkably senseless the policy is. It throws another problem at people who suffer a sudden misfortune (like getting cancer) that stops them from working, even when they are living in a property that no family is likely to accept.
(By the way, my local authority is one of the onces that is refusing to pay any DHPs to people who get DLA because it considers that with DLA “they have enough to live on”. But that’s yet another issue.)
Would the non-resident carer additional room allowance be an option?
I’d certainly suggest a press release if the claimant is up for it. Howabout an ombudsman complaint about the DHP policy?
The non-resident carer exemption may well apply before long. But my client tells me that he doesn’t need overnight care at the moment.
My post is funded by Macmillan, so I will be feeding them information about instances of the bedroom tax affecting people with cancer. They may want to use it for lobbying purposes.
I’d certainly suggest a press release if the claimant is up for it. Howabout an ombudsman complaint about the DHP policy?
Somebody at Fylde CAB (whom I met at the last NAWRA conference) is asking people to inform her of instances of local authorities refusing DHPs to people who get DLA. Blackpool Council does the same, and she is compiling information for a judicial review claim, as the policy is unlawful. A JR will be much more effective than an ombudsman’s complaint.
Talk of JR over unlawful DHP policies seems a bit hasty to me.
I would be surprised if any local authority has a policy of not awarding DHPs to people on DLA - I think every LA will regard it as self-evident that some of the most compelling DHP cases will involve people who get DLA or have a family member on DLA. It is more likely that they are saying they will not automatically ignore DLA when weighing up all the issues including the applicant’s financial situation.
There is a simplistic proposition that DLA should never be factored in to the decision because it is paid to meet specific needs and it isn’t spare cash. Many local authorities’ response to that is “yes we understand that, but we will look at the whole picture in every case and sometimes the availability of DLA might lead us to conclude that the claimant could perhaps use it to pay the bedroom tax - every case on its merits, nothing ruled in, nothing ruled out”. That is the right approach I think.
Blackpool has been mentioned. You can see Blackpool’s policy here:
There is absolutely nothing in there to suggest people on DLA are excluded, indeed some of the target groups it describes as being likely candidates for a DHP must necessarily be on DLA to come within that group.
Talk of JR over unlawful DHP policies seems a bit hasty to me.
I would be surprised if any local authority has a policy of not awarding DHPs to people on DLA - I think every LA will regard it as self-evident that some of the most compelling DHP cases will involve people who get DLA or have a family member on DLA. It is more likely that they are saying they will not automatically ignore DLA when weighing up all the issues including the applicant’s financial situation.
There is a simplistic proposition that DLA should never be factored in to the decision because it is paid to meet specific needs and it isn’t spare cash. Many local authorities’ response to that is “yes we understand that, but we will look at the whole picture in every case and sometimes the availability of DLA might lead us to conclude that the claimant could perhaps use it to pay the bedroom tax - every case on its merits, nothing ruled in, nothing ruled out”. That is the right approach I think.
Blackpool has been mentioned. You can see Blackpool’s policy here:
There is absolutely nothing in there to suggest people on DLA are excluded, indeed some of the target groups it describes as being likely candidates for a DHP must necessarily be on DLA to come within that group.
I think the basis for the JR is that the approach described in your third paragraph is either unlawful, or unreasonable in the legal sense. But you’d have to talk to the person who is doing the JR. I haven’t myself read the regs or guidance in that much detail yet. Nor do I know the specifics of the particular case. By the way, as I’m sure you know, there is a time limit for submitting a judicial review claim, so “haste” would appear to be essential!