Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Bedroom Tax, a possible solution?
Leeds City Council reclassify rooms to get around the bedroom tax, or spare room subisdy if you are that way inclined.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/29/leeds-council-bedroom-tax-solution?CMP=twt_gu
here’s the independent’s take on it -
apparently some councils might adopt a policy of no evictions if the arrears are solely due to the bedroom tax. Though a Camden councillor writing in the Guardian suggests there may be some practical and legal obstacles to this approach
http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2013/jun/04/no-eviction-policies-bedroom-tax
Brighton council have adopted a no eviction policy, although officers are making every attempt to sabotage it.
Some time ago I raised the issue of councils or HA’s simply locking “spare” bedrooms, with the agreement of the tenant. This gets round the legal situation which is that the benefit payer is not bound by what the landlord says.
Lots of people expressed doubt that such a simple solution would work, but no one could say why. Looks good to me. What do you think? If it will not work, why not?
Err…. because the landlord and tenant have signed a legal tenancy agreement, on the basis of a specific property, and would now be colluding to sidestep the HB regulations?
What about pulling the wall between two bedrooms down, with the agreement of both parties?
This has the additional advantage that the landlord can jusitify continuing to charge the same rent because the property has at least one especially spacious bedroom, and there is no bedroom tax merely because a bedroom is needlessly large.
What about pulling the wall between two bedrooms down, with the agreement of both parties?
This has the additional advantage that the landlord can jusitify continuing to charge the same rent because the property has at least one especially spacious bedroom, and there is no bedroom tax merely because a bedroom is needlessly large.
Doesn’t work for RSLs
The least worst option, if you can get the LA to help with removal costs, help with DHP while they look etc, is to advise customers on organising an exchange too smaller. That way you are helping two households…...
Brighton council have adopted a no eviction policy, although officers are making every attempt to sabotage it.
Some time ago I raised the issue of councils or HA’s simply locking “spare” bedrooms, with the agreement of the tenant. This gets round the legal situation which is that the benefit payer is not bound by what the landlord says.
Lots of people expressed doubt that such a simple solution would work, but no one could say why. Looks good to me. What do you think? If it will not work, why not?
I cast a doubt over the approach. And I said why - you just didn’t like it.
Sorry Tony, you are quite right. I raised this issue in a number of forums but I think only you commented. However you did not say why you thought just locking the door would not work.
What about pulling the wall between two bedrooms down, with the agreement of both parties?
This has the additional advantage that the landlord can jusitify continuing to charge the same rent because the property has at least one especially spacious bedroom, and there is no bedroom tax merely because a bedroom is needlessly large.
Doesn’t work for RSLs
Do you mean it doesn’t work because they would have to reduce the rent? Are RSLs required to charge on a per bedroom basis only? I confess I don’t know much about that side of it.
Err…. because the landlord and tenant have signed a legal tenancy agreement, on the basis of a specific property, and would now be colluding to sidestep the HB regulations?
A tenancy agreement can be changed. Of course there is the argument that the tenancy is contrived, but it would be the council that would have to decide that.
Parties to tenancies are perfectly free to vary their terms or to create new ones. The question will be, “is a new liability created?” This will be a question of fact in each case. The bigger or more substantial the change/s the more likely it will be that a new liability has been created. Then, and only then, will the issue of contrivance walk onto the stage.
Err…. because the landlord and tenant have signed a legal tenancy agreement, on the basis of a specific property, and would now be colluding to sidestep the HB regulations?
A tenancy agreement can be changed. Of course there is the argument that the tenancy is contrived, but it would be the council that would have to decide that.
Hmmm. It looks like Lord Freud is not going to be happy..
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/Lord_Freud_Redesignation_Letter_June_2013.pdf
The least worst option, if you can get the LA to help with removal costs, help with DHP while they look etc, is to advise customers on organising an exchange too smaller. That way you are helping two households…...
Many tenants don’t in practice have “spare” bedrooms.
Some can’t afford to move (£500+ for a reputable removals firm, and no RSLs or government departments are offering to pay removal costs.)
Some have a “spare” bedroom in a type of property that isn’t suitable for families (10th floor of a tower block?)
And I’m sure you’ve heard that there simply aren’t enough smaller properties to downsize to. I’ve heard six year waiting lists for transfers to a one bedroom property quoted.
And then there’s the general objection that this is a policy that was not meant to do what the government claims it intends, which is, encourage people to downsize to free up bigger properties for families. If that was true, they would surely have thought it out better and would have included pensioners in the bedroom tax, and offered incentives as well as, or instead of, penalties. And they would have offered inducements for people underoccupying but who are in work and therefore out of reach of benefit penalties to move as well - why not?
A survey of how many underoccupied properties there are, compared to overcrowded households, would also have been a good idea.
The government’s motives on this issue are deeply suspect!
And they would have offered inducements for people underoccupying but who are in work and therefore out of reach of benefit penalties to move as well - why not?
In fact, many Authorities (in the South) do already offer payments and “additional priority” on housing lists to downsizers. whether working or not. They need the houses back as there is a huge demand for these type of properties.
Working claimants are subject to bedroom tax, they only become “out of reach” of this benefit penalty, when their income means they are no longer entitled to HB. Higher earners, already in larger cheap social accommodation are pretty unlikely to move, to smaller social accommodation, even when offered a hefty incentive….
Much more likely to buy their current home….....Still…..