Bedroom tax

[scorza]

There is a certain irony on a Brazilian lecturing the UK on the state of social housing though...

Did you see her on the news? Hysterical she was.

 

[dowie]

There is a certain irony on a Brazilian lecturing the UK on the state of social housing though...

complete farce - she didn't bother meeting with the govt, referred to it as the 'bedroom tax' pretty much had an agenda already

surely the UN has better things to do than target a country with one of the most general welfare systems on the planet... I mean not being able to have the state subsidise bedrooms you don't actually need - hardly an epic breach of human rights...

 

[Biohazard]

She did meet with the Government, several times it would seem.

The impacts of this policy are incredibly damaging to those in protected groups. There is no getting away from this.

 

[dowie]

She did meet with the Government, several times it would seem.

Who? not IDS AFAIK - I'd be interested which govt ministers she met with?

The impacts of this policy are incredibly damaging to those in protected groups. There is no getting away from this.

There seem to be some issues with regards to disabled people that would need to be addressed - though that's an implementation issue affecting a minority rather than a problem with the policy in principle. The idea that people shouldn't be subsidised for more bedrooms than they actually require while there are long waiting lists for housing, other families in overcrowded accommodation etc.. isn't unreasonable.

 

[Biohazard]

Who? not IDS AFAIK - I'd be interested which govt ministers she met with?

You said she didn't meet the "govt". Not the Minister. Perhaps he could have went to see her?

She has clearly had interaction with the UK Government in the last two weeks by her own accounts and is likely to continue that.

"Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Communities and Local Government, as well as meetings with two DCLG ministers."

There seem to be some issues with regards to disabled people that would need to address - though that's an implementation issue affecting a minority rather than a problem with the policy in principle. The idea that people shouldn't be subsidised for more bedrooms than they actually require while there are long waiting lists for housing, other families in overcrowded accommodation etc.. isn't unreasonable.

But the Government refuses to accept there is anything to address?

I think the impact of vulnerable groups is a lot bigger than you suggest, and I suspect these investigations and others will shine a better light on the issue.

Housing could be utilized better, this draconian measure is clearly not the answer.

 

[Biohazard]

The fight back continues..

Size matters — Fife rulings could have national implications for future of ‘bedroom tax’

The UK Government’s controversial “bedroom tax” policy could be thrown into disarray following a decision by a top QC.


In a statement that could have nationwide implications, Simon Collins has ruled dimensions do matter when it comes to defining a bedroom.

The ruling could open the floodgates for appeals by thousands of tenants affected by the new legislation.

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the ruling was hugely significant, adding it “underlines the already existing concerns that the bedroom tax is in breach of human rights”.

Around 660,000 people, including 75,000 in Scotland, have had their housing benefit cut after being told they have more bedrooms than they need.

The Government has always refused to define a minimum bedroom size, but following a number of test cases in Fife Mr Collins — who was appointed by the UK Government to judge bedroom tax tribunals — has ruled a room measuring less than 50 square feet is not a bedroom.

The QC also said a room measuring between 50 and 70 square feet could only be used as a bedroom by a child aged under 10.

Mr Collins, who was appointed by Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke to be the First-tier Tribunal judge, also ruled the long-established use of rooms should be taken into account.

The Fife appeals were the first in Scotland and follow unsuccessful challenges in Birmingham earlier this year.

Campaigners against the so-called bedroom tax were last night celebrating the judgments, saying they set a precedent that would give hope to others affected by the legislation.

However, while the findings offer guidance to future tribunal judges and local authorities, they are not legally binding.

Fife Council — which has the right to appeal against the rulings — said it would take time to consider the implications and would issue guidance to staff.

David Nelson from Glenrothes appealed after having his housing benefit cut by 14%.

The 57-year-old, who lives in a three-bedroom house with wife Maureen, had already successfully appealed to the council that his second bedroom was often used by his son who acts as his carer.

His appeal to the tribunal was on the grounds that his remaining spare room measured 66 square feet and was therefore a boxroom and not a bedroom.

“The letter I got said a room of 66 square feet can only be used by a child up to 10 years old,” he said. “It can’t even be used by a lodger because it’s too small.”

Mr Nelson added: “Everybody has the right to appeal against their own individual cases. Councils should review every case and go out and measure every room.”

Solicitor Graeme Sutherland, of Fife Law Centre, who acted on behalf of a number of the appellants, said he had sought to persuade the tribunal judge that each case should be decided on its own merits.

“Other councils will be looking very closely at this to see how they should be interpreting these new benefit rules,” he said.

Councillor David Ross, deputy leader of Fife Council, said: “The findings have provided some clarification, which we welcome, but there are also a lot of questions left unanswered.

“What is now clear is that usable floor space and long-established use of rooms are factors that have to be taken into account when considering what can be classed as a bedroom.”

He added: “These hearings have just emphasised how unworkable the system is and we believe the bedroom tax should be scrapped.”

Les Robertson, revenues service manager, said: “It will take time to consider all the implications of these judgments and we will also need to take into account the findings from cases in other parts of the country. We’ll be issuing advice to staff based on these decisions.”

When contacted by The Courier, local authorities and housing associations in Courier Country said they had “no minimum sizes for bedrooms” and they said they would look at any potential repercussions from the Fife ruling.

'Same rules as in private sector'

The UK Government last night distanced itself from the judgment and played down its potential impact, writes Kieran Andrews, political editor.

A Westminster source said that as the case was concerned with a claimant winning an appeal on how many bedrooms they have in the property in terms of housing benefit, it was a matter for landlords and their tenants to sort out.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Work and Pensions also pointed out that Scotland had received millions of pounds to offset the impact of the bedroom tax since it was brought into force.

She said: “It’s simply not affordable to pay housing benefit for people to have spare rooms, and our reforms in the social sector mean families receive help for the number of bedrooms they need, and these are exactly the same rules as in the private sector.

“Scotland has been given £10 million this year to help vulnerable people, and we are monitoring this spending carefully.”

The spokeswoman said that in July the UK Government had announced an extra £35m funding nationally on top of the aforementioned £10m for Scotland to help councils support vulnerable people.

That included £10m in transitional payments distributed to all councils, a new £20m discretionary housing payment fund and a £5m discretionary housing payment fund for the least densely populated areas in the country.

With regards to the latter, the spokeswoman said around half of the rural authorities getting extra cash are in Scotland, which totals roughly £3.5m.

I think the wider ramifications of this judgement could shake the bedroom tax and ailing universal benefit more than is anticipated.

 

[Rofflay]

The issue she was furious at most if you read it was that there are no one bedroom houses or two bedroom nearly all of the UK stock was 3-4 bed row upon row built for the workers in the early days.

My mate is single and has a two bed there are basically no 1 bed's anywhere near i think maybe five out of a stock of 2000 are one bed bungalow's and they are all taken by old people or disabled people.


So basically he will be shafted from no where for £14 he cannot spare.Some of them are building them ten miles or more away and offering people them to move away from family as well all because the housing stock is old and no one builds one bedrooms anymore.They have money spare to bomb syria yet have to stress people out over £14 a week,Im sure everyone would jump at the chance to move into a smaller home and easier to heat but where are the homes?

 

[dowie]

You said she didn't meet the "govt". Not the Minister. Perhaps he could have went to see her?

She didn't meet the govt AFAIK - you claimed otherwise - I've asked who she met?

But the Government refuses to accept there is anything to address?

I think the impact of vulnerable groups is a lot bigger than you suggest, and I suspect these investigations and others will shine a better light on the issue.

I've not suggested anything about the size of the impact other than its a minority - which it is...

Housing could be utilized better, this draconian measure is clearly not the answer.

why is it clearly not the answer - I'm not talking about the issue with disabled people but just the idea that we reduce funding/incentivise people living in housing with more bedrooms than they require to move on - why should we be subsidising such accommodation when the money would be better spent on people who actually need it.

 

[Biohazard]

She didn't meet the govt AFAIK - you claimed otherwise - I've asked who she met?

Well she says that she did?

I don't know who she has met, I wasn't there.

She gave details of meetings on welfare reform she had with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Communities and Local Government, as well as meetings with two DCLG ministers.

So I see no reason for her to lie. Even then, she technically wouldn't have to engage with the Government (be that ministers, senior civil servants MP's or departments) other than for politeness.

It would be phenomenal for the UK to either refuse entry to, or eject a UN envoy.

I've not suggested anything about the size of the impact other than its a minority - which it is...

The hundreds of thousands that are effected by this are a minority, that's quite trivial in any event especially in the face of such ill thought out reform, and within this minority an unacceptable level of those effected and effected the worst are the disabled and vulnerable groups.

why is it clearly not the answer - I'm not talking about the issue with disabled people but just the idea that we reduce funding/incentivise people living in housing with more bedrooms than they require to move on - why should we be subsidising such accommodation when the money would be better spent on people who actually need it.

It isn't a subsidy, the policy is in effect a 'tax' on the housing welfare budget to try and punish those in social housing for a national failing in housing stock management.

This is a perverted game of musical chairs (or financial disincentive if you can't play) for thousands and only a few stools lying about at best. To put it another way.

 

[dowie]

Well she says that she did?

you did.... I quoted you and asked who....

I don't know who she has met, I wasn't there.

Well AFAIK she didn't have a meeting with anyone form the govt... you don't have to have been there - these sorts of things get reported - you made the claim that she had and now are unable to substantiate that claim...

The hundreds of thousands that are effected by this are a minority, that's quite trivial in any event especially in the face of such ill thought out reform, and within this minority an unacceptable level of those effected and effected the worst are the disabled and vulnerable groups.

Hundreds of thousands require extra bedrooms? I'd be interested to know where that figure cam from - sounds more like a crude extrapolation from numbers of people with disabilities...

It isn't a subsidy, the policy is in effect a 'tax' on the housing welfare budget to try and punish those in social housing for a national failing in housing stock management.

Its the removal of a subsidy - it isn't a tax.... I'm still not seeing any argument for subsidising people to have more bedrooms than they actually require when there is a housing shortage...

 

[Duke]

Its the removal of a subsidy - it isn't a tax.... I'm still not seeing any argument for subsidising people to have more bedrooms than they actually require when there is a housing shortage...

If people want to keep their oversized house when its no longer needed, they should pay for it.

 

[Biohazard]

you did.... I quoted you and asked who....

I did what? I told you what she was quoted as saying.

Well AFAIK she didn't have a meeting with anyone form the govt... you don't have to have been there - these sorts of things get reported - you made the claim that she had and now are unable to substantiate that claim...

Why do you keep going on about AFAIK?

You know nothing, I know nothing, we can only go on sources. One source says one thing, another says the opposite. Can you please substantiate the Tory claim if you demand the same from me??

Clearly common sense dictates that neither you or I can prove this, but I would estimate on a balance of probabilities that the UN envoy has little reason to lie, I could see an reason as to why the Tories would want to smear.

Hundreds of thousands require extra bedrooms? I'd be interested to know where that figure cam from - sounds more like a crude extrapolation from numbers of people with disabilities...

That's not what was said at all. Houses without those 'extra bedrooms' don't exist.

Its the removal of a subsidy - it isn't a tax.... I'm still not seeing any argument for subsidising people to have more bedrooms than they actually require when there is a housing shortage...

...

 

[Biohazard]

If people want to keep their oversized house when its no longer needed, they should pay for it.

If there is no available smaller alternative property?

Or one that has been customised to a specific disability?

 

[dowie]

edit - forget it - its going to de-rail the thread and is a bit pointless.... would rather concentrate on the policy itself

That's not what was said at all. Houses without those 'extra bedrooms' don't exist.

seemingly they do - there are rather a lot of people living in them who are no longer going to be subsidised.... kind of the whole point of this 'tax'

there might be some cases amongst disabled people where an extra bedroom is actually required - such as for a carer etc.. or because their partner can't share some special bed with them - this is a minority of cases.....

 

[estebanrey]

If there is no available smaller alternative property?

Or one that has been customised to a specific disability?

But what if there is? Would you still be against it?

 

[Duke]

But what if there is? Would you still be against it?

Indeed. A small number which may need some work or be allowed an extra room is not something to stop the majority.

 

[Biohazard]

But what if there is? Would you still be against it?

Of course not, I would like to see as much efficiency in public spending as possible. However the reality is that this situation is going to be the exception to the rule unfortunately, leaving a lot of other people penalised and no immediate way of being able to do anything about it.

 

[Biohazard]

seemingly they do - there are rather a lot of people living in them who are no longer going to be subsidised.... kind of the whole point of this 'tax'

there might be some cases amongst disabled people where an extra bedroom is actually required - such as for a carer etc.. or because their partner can't share some special bed with them - this is a minority of cases.....

According to who exactly?

 

[dowie]

which bit are you refering to - the fact that there are some disabled people who require an extra bedroom - or the fact that there are people with extra bedrooms who will be affected by the reduction in subsidy

 

[Biohazard]

There is a significant shortage of one bedroom properties across both sectors? You said that isn't the case. I asked according to whom?

I know some people, not just disabled, need a second room, it's the whole 'oh it's nothing to worry about, it's just effecting a minority of a minority and who cares about them I'm alright jack' layering that's quite difficult to marry up with the several reports and investigations into the effects of the 'bedroom tax' and the devastating impact this is having because of a poor concept of reform of which the stated outcome is an impossibility.

The only achievement to come from this would be cost saving, and it could well yet prove to be discriminatory and or a breach of human rights.