Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Orr

GET UPDATES FROM David Orr
 

Peers Must Stop This Unjust Bedroom Tax

Posted: 12/12/11 00:00 GMT

We've heard a lot about the Government's headline-grabbing benefits cap, which threatens to plunge 50,000 larger families into poverty. But a separate and lesser known plan to punish social tenants for 'under-occupying' their homes is just as unfair and will hit more than 10 times that number of low-income people.

The Government has admitted its proposed 'size criteria', which forms part of the Welfare Reform Bill, will cost 670,000 tenants an average of £676 per year. That includes families who are deemed to have just one 'spare' bedroom, perhaps because their children have left home or a family member has died. Two thirds of those affected are disabled, the Department for Work and Pensions has admitted.

However, for households deemed to be under-occupying by two or more bedrooms, the 25% reduction in housing benefit being contemplated could cost families living in three-bedroom homes in London, for example, an eye-watering £1,385 per year.

And in the North West - where almost half of all working-age housing benefit claimants in the social sector face being hit by the penalty - families in similarly sized properties face losing up to £955 a year.

This bedroom tax will have disastrous implications for a huge number of people already struggling to make ends meet in this tough economic climate, including grandparents, disabled people and smaller families.

It's important to recognize that this blunt measure is not simply taking aim at families with bedrooms lying empty. For example, under the Government's restrictive new rules, same sex teenagers up to the age of 15 will be forced to share a bedroom. And foster parents will be affected even where their bedrooms are occupied by foster children, who for benefit purposes do not count as part of the household.

Others threatened with benefit cuts include lone parents or grandparents who use their 'spare' bedroom to share the care of their children or grandchildren, couples who sleep separately for medical reasons and disabled people who have had their homes specially adapted for their needs.

Crucially, that extra room often isn't 'spare'. It is the place a family carer stays when a parent is ill, or the space a teenage child needs for privacy and study. It is part of normal life. We believe that penalising some families for living the lives most people lead is unfair and unjust. Yet that is what is going to happen from April 2013 if the Welfare Reform Bill goes through unamended.

Of course, everyone understands the desire to make best use of our inadequate supply of affordable homes. But these families will be forced to choose between going into debt, struggling to meet payments by cutting back on essentials, or trying to move - even if no suitable alternative properties are available.

Ahead of the Bill's Report Stage in the House of Lords, which begins today, the National Housing Federation is calling on the Government to make the rules more flexible, to allow one additional bedroom above that permitted by the proposed criteria.

Crossbench peer Lord Best has tabled an amendment to this effect and we ask members of the House of Lords to support it.

 
We've heard a lot about the Government's headline-grabbing benefits cap, which threatens to plunge 50,000 larger families into poverty. But a separate and lesser known plan to punish social tenants fo...
We've heard a lot about the Government's headline-grabbing benefits cap, which threatens to plunge 50,000 larger families into poverty. But a separate and lesser known plan to punish social tenants fo...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 33
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
09:22 AM on 01/24/2012
The former USSR comes too mind here.
god help us all.
wes
08:42 AM on 01/24/2012
I only hope if this goes through that it affects all those who have second homes and holiday properties.
A relative of mine is severely disabled and her spare bedroom is filled with equipment she needs on a day to day basis.
09:50 AM on 12/30/2011
The government have accepted that if all the 650,000 people move to smaller properties, thats assuming they were available, then the savings to the taxpayer would be significantly reduced, if not removed altogether, which of course means that the government want to cash in on an opportunity to penalise the poor who probably cant move anyway

The idea that properties with spare bedrooms could be given to people who need more bedrooms simply doesnt stack up, because many of the properties with the spare bedrooms are in properties and in areas that families do not want. This of course is the reason why people with lower occupancy have been offered the property in the first place. By forcing people out of their homes all you would end up with is a load of EMPTY properties

Is obvious someone in the government has just looked at the statistics of spare bedrooms and over-crowding and jumped to the wrong conclusion without understanding the practicality of how it would actually work

If people are forced to move they will most likely have to leave the area altogether and take a property many miles away - probably even hundreds of miles away, destroying families, contacts, communities, and probably leading to greater poverty, unemployment, and debt which all ads up to greater cost to the taxpayer.
02:46 PM on 12/13/2011
A reduction in housing benefits is NOT a tax. A tax is something you pay on money you earn or something you buy. People occupying social housing with empty bedrooms only make the the existing housing shortage worse and housing prices higher for those who rent privately or buy (and actually pay taxes instead of taking benefits).
08:44 AM on 12/13/2011
oh dear it looks like my comment was wiped
11:11 PM on 12/12/2011
This problem will soon be solved when the sick, disabled and long term unemployed have their houses confiscated and they are moved into workhouses. You cant beat those good old Victorian values.
10:23 PM on 12/12/2011
What's the problem with sharing a bedroom? Soon it will your human right to have your own room, even though the state is paying for it.
10:19 PM on 12/12/2011
The Government would do better to stop taxing WORKING people on £12,000, than giving benefits of £16,000 or more TAX-FREE to some households. It's grossly unfair that we have to subsidis these people in their big houses. No wonder they have loads of children and don't want to get a job. I work hard and I'm still going under!
10:05 AM on 12/16/2011
Agreed. As for taxation for low income working people and pensioners, just remember the reversal of the 0% rate of income tax that Gordon Brown announced in his budget of 2007. This hit over three million working poor and low income pensioners. In the next breath he went on to cut the basic rate of tax for the better off than these by 2P, a measure clearly aimed at the middle class in the interests of an election that never was. How anyone on a low income not derived from the state felt able to vote Labour after that is astonishing.
10:06 AM on 12/16/2011
Typo! 10%
07:23 PM on 12/12/2011
No, Capping benefits did NOT plunge these people into poverty - their selfish action in having more than 2 children is what plunged them into poverty.

But I do feel sorry for those who have to pay an "eye-watering £1,385 per year" for an extra guest bedroom - or, I would if there was somewhere I could rent a bedroom for £1,385 per year (115.42 a month) in London.
06:42 PM on 12/12/2011
I wonder if this will affect the Queen - more houses and more rooms than just she and Philip can use surely? And then there's the Oxford set (Cam et al) extra houses with more than one room to spare. With all these attacks on the disabled, I really think Cam the Sham should get on with building the gas chambers and show his true colours - he clearly is itching to. Yes, I know, he had a disabled child and that was a tragedy, but he is clearly transferring his guilt and grief onto the disabled population as a whole.
This comment has been removed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AceNewsServices
Changing The World One Step At A Time
04:28 PM on 12/12/2011
This is just another example of this governments welfare reform bill that they say is for the people but l say it is for themselves and it is the people that will pay.
07:04 PM on 12/12/2011
This is solely for people on benefits who are being charged more rent than they should be by landlords who just want the taxpayer to pay their mortgage off for them. It's high time rents were brought down and it won't happen until people are given less benefit to pay them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AceNewsServices
Changing The World One Step At A Time
01:01 PM on 12/15/2011
I agree in a way the problem is with the type of government we have they will find a way to reduce benefits below a level of affordability. Also l do not believe that landlords will reduce their rental income. But do agree that it does support their mortgages - a difficult one.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:52 PM on 12/12/2011
Another way that the "powers that be" want you pay and pay and pay...... Next they will come and take the house you bought and paid for if one bedroom is not used. What about getting a rebate if 2 or more people are using the room. In Greece they have introduce a property tax through the paying of energy bills.

http://www­.guardian.­co.uk/worl­d/2011/dec­/02/greece­-in-revolt­-over-prop­erty-tax
02:58 PM on 12/12/2011
So a young couple trying to get in in the housing market,via the council,and they are on low income,what chance do they have if the council only has three or four bedroom houses available,will it be their fault that they wanted a two bedroom house but there was none available,anything for bloody money out of the hard up.
02:01 PM on 12/12/2011
Why are these people always bashing up the less fortunate? I am now 61 up until 2007 my wife and I owned our own property, we made a very bad business deal to demolish our property and build two new houses, the builder made numerous errors, the recession set in and the house market slumped, we had to sell both properties just to pay everything off, we came out without a penny, to add to our misery, I had a stroke, okay the business error was our fault cutting a long story short, we now live in a private one bed flat and I receive pension credits, I had worked and paid a stamp for over forty five years. Our rent is £750 per month, we receive £600 the odd £150 per month has to come from the £740 per month benefit payments, which leaves us with £600 per month to live on, as you can imagine this is very very hard, fortunatley we have a close family to assist where they can. I do get very annoyed when I read that somebody who has been here a week gets given a property and everything paid for, then somebody else has their benefits cut for having an extra room in a house they may have lived in for years, that could have been me, very sad state of affairs.
04:00 PM on 12/12/2011
Greed, Greed, Greed. A victim of your own greed. It was not a bad business deal your greed and where easily conned like a lot of people. Never gamble with your main residence and never take out a mortgage more than 5 times your income. I guess when you bought the house it was a mortgage less than 5 times your income.
05:10 PM on 12/12/2011
That is a very harsh post. He admitted the business deal was his fault for chrissake.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Yepperday
07:48 PM on 12/12/2011
You don't know a thing about this gentleman's particulars. Get down off your high-and-mighty judging pulpit. I'm sure your life not pure as driven snow by any means.