Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Bedroom Tax and Lodgers
I have found loads of info saying if a social landlord tenant with one spare room takes in a lodger the room is no longer classed as spare and the tenant can charge £20 a week before if effects their benefits (and that there is no Non Dep Deduction)
What I need to know is can the lodger claim HB for the £20 the main tenant is charging them?
Keep coming across different opinions?
Any thoughts welcome especially if you know tenants that have done this.
Thanks
Thanks Tony.
Yes I am worried about the potential for HB to say not it is not a commercial agreement and/or a contrived tenancy etc. The thing is it wouldn’t make sense commercially for a tenant to charge a lodger more than £20 pw as they would lose any more from their benefit. If a person moved in as a non commercial “friend” there would be a NDD.
If both people could get 1 bed flats they wouldn’t need to pay bedroom tax or NDD respectively but 1 bed flats are hard to come by. This seems like a practical and commercially viable solution.
Not sure what you are referring to in the second part of your post. Are you referring to position under Universal Credit?
You can email me direct on .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Discussed here in relation to non deps and the SCP but there is enough about HB and commerciality for you to chew on.
I’d like to know what Tony’s second point is as well.
Whole of Rightsnet community now sat staring at their computers and mobile devices waiting…
I’ve replied to Tony but I don’t know whether he’s persuaded. If he isn’t then I shouldn’t open it wider I suppose.
I’ll chuck in my comments to Tony, with a rephrased (C) to try and clarify.
(in fact I’ll expand a bit on the other points as well)
I think Tony’s worrying unnecessarily about deprivation.
In order for deprivation to apply there has to be a definite amount which has been ‘given up’. That means something which was due to be received and has been foregone. There is no definite ‘extra rent’ that has been foregone in this case.
The second type of consideration is ‘income available on application’ and I can’t see that having any legs.
For either case , there would have to be evidence that
A) there was a definite, and higher, commercial rent value *that could be received* and there are too many factors for that to be easy to demonstrate, if at all possible.
B) there would need to be evidence that the lodger could afford and would pay the higher rent. It has to be focussed on the existing lodger - a notional lodger might be unacceptable for perfectly sound reasons even if they could afford a higher rent. (Imagine a PO arguing that a higher notional rent could be paid by a mass-murdering, terror suspect who must therefore be given a room).
C) there would need to be evidence that the higher rent was available on application. In other words that if the landlord asked the tenant they could and would pay.
I think it would be easy enough to muddy the waters around commercial value anyway, by introducing factors which would lower the rental value. Constraints on behaviour, self-cleaning, etc. etc.
..(B) there would need to be evidence that the lodger could afford and would pay the higher rent. It has to be focussed on the existing lodger - a notional lodger might be unacceptable for perfectly sound reasons even if they could afford a higher rent. (Imagine a PO arguing that a higher notional rent could be paid by a mass-murdering, terror suspect who must therefore be given a room).
C) there would need to be evidence that the higher rent was available on application. In other words that if the landlord asked the tenant they could and would pay.
I think it would be easy enough to muddy the waters around commercial value anyway, by introducing factors which would lower the rental value. Constraints on behaviour, self-cleaning, etc. etc.
I think I’d run with the PO’s suggestion actually. Alright so you might lose (B) but who’s going to push that guy (not even notionally) for rent if he refuses under (C)? I suspect some students would pay a premium for a constraint on self-cleaning as well.
Not looked at law again but my instinct is to go with Tony. Ok you might have a tenancy agreement along the lines of: “tenant to wait on landlord hand and foot, do all his/her own cleaning, behave like a priest, always agree with landlord, get same haircut as landlord” but still, let’s face it, for £20 it’s still a bargain.
[ Edited: 5 Jun 2014 at 10:33 pm by Tom H ]
I think that the core question is ‘how much’?
How does a DM arrive at the figure of deprivation which will be used .... and evidence it?
I have found loads of info saying if a social landlord tenant with one spare room takes in a lodger the room is no longer classed as spare and the tenant can charge £20 a week before if effects their benefits (and that there is no Non Dep Deduction)
What I need to know is can the lodger claim HB for the £20 the main tenant is charging them?
Keep coming across different opinions?
Any thoughts welcome especially if you know tenants that have done this.
Thanks
Your mythical council tenant really needs some broader advice https://www.gov.uk/rent-room-in-your-home
After he has read it.. he or she will not be interested at anthing under a “market rent”...