Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
SarahBell

Bedroom Tax Appeal

Recommended Posts

http://speye.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/the-bedroom-tax-is-dead-heres-why/

This has to be one of the biggest load of nonsense.

Surely the number of bedrooms your property has is defined on your rent book and not by what you do with them?

If this is the law and it sticks then people receiving LHA in the private sector need to start appealing the fact they are allowed fewer rooms than people in social housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is the law and it sticks then people receiving LHA in the private sector need to start appealing the fact they are allowed fewer rooms than people in social housing.

..good idea, and they should appeal for secure tenancies and rent controls as well.Throw in a 'right to buy' at a good discount from a private landlord, as well as compulsory registration of all private landlord too, for good measure!

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..good idea, and they should appeal for secure tenancies and rent controls as well.Throw in a 'right to buy' at a good discount from a private landlord. too for good measure!

Isn't RTB(ATD) seen as one of the problems not a solution?

What if someone turned all their bedrooms into 'non-bedrooms' - could they apply for a bigger property?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a load of nonsense.

especially the sweeping statement that there is no such thing as under-occupancy - so what is a single person living in a 3 bedroom house doing but 'under-occupying' which is nothing to do with how many bedrooms but with the sheer square-footage of the house.

the mistake the govt made was to mention bedrooms - which gave rise to the mis-nomer bedroom tax when it is nothing of the sort.

if a person in social housing at a subsidised rent and receiving HB for a house larger than their needs - bedrooms or square footage makes not a scrap of difference - their HB is reduced as if they were living in private rental.

I cannot get over the bleating and hand-wringing over this issue - when there are so many millions on waiting lists (families living in over-crowded conditions) who would give their eye-teeth for security of tenure, subsidised rents and not be at the behest of private landlords. :angry:

Edited by olliegog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://speye.wordpre...dead-heres-why/

This has to be one of the biggest load of nonsense.

Surely the number of bedrooms your property has is defined on your rent book and not by what you do with them?

If this is the law and it sticks then people receiving LHA in the private sector need to start appealing the fact they are allowed fewer rooms than people in social housing.

There is no accepted definition of a bedroom, there is a definition whereby a room of a certain size can be classed as a bedroom suitable for 0.5, 1, 1.5 or 2 people.

I know people with a room barely big enough for 0.5 people and they are being charged bedroom tax.

Another person who converted an attic due to overcrowding many years ago, and is now being charged bedroom tax, even though their tenancy states the property is a 2 bedroom, not 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the issue of dining rooms and living rooms. Some properties have a dining room and a living room, some have a living room, some do not. These could be classed as bedrooms, or as dining/living rooms.

Some people may use a room as an office. Many businesses start off in spare rooms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no accepted definition of a bedroom, there is a definition whereby a room of a certain size can be classed as a bedroom suitable for 0.5, 1, 1.5 or 2 people.

I know people with a room barely big enough for 0.5 people and they are being charged bedroom tax.

Another person who converted an attic due to overcrowding many years ago, and is now being charged bedroom tax, even though their tenancy states the property is a 2 bedroom, not 2.

There are probably families with children (who count as 1/2 a person for overcrowding issues) who might make better use of the space.

All the weeping and gnashing of teeth with people crying "but this spare room isn't big enough for a double bed" must be infuriating to people who are actually overcrowded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are probably families with children (who count as 1/2 a person for overcrowding issues) who might make better use of the space.

All the weeping and gnashing of teeth with people crying "but this spare room isn't big enough for a double bed" must be infuriating to people who are actually overcrowded.

I think what people are really saying as why did they not build a load of one bed flats, prior to introducing the bedroom tax?

Where I am, the situation is totally log jammed due to the bedroom tax and there isn't a one bed to have (well there are in former drug dens where no one wants to live).

Just come off the phone to my Housing officer who wants me to move (well I volunteered actually) to give up my one bed, ground floor for a less mobile person.

They offered me another flat on the top floor, but that tenant can't move due to the problems with the flat he was supposed to move into, and next month they are supposed to be doing vital work to the lifts, which means they will be out of action for 6/7 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are probably families with children (who count as 1/2 a person for overcrowding issues) who might make better use of the space.

All the weeping and gnashing of teeth with people crying "but this spare room isn't big enough for a double bed" must be infuriating to people who are actually overcrowded.

Maybe there is.

But there are families who could make better use of space in private housing. Some of which is funded by the state via SMI. No bedroom tax for them.

At the end of the day, people with secure tenancies have rights, and those rights stop them from being forced to move to free up housing.

Maybe we should have such a law and force people in private housing to downsize.

Maybe we shouldn't, what we should be doing is building more housing in areas of high housing demand, instead of evicting people in areas of low housing demand and ending up with properties sat idle, which then get destroyed and demolished.

Edited by Self Employed Youth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we had a citizens income, the lack of HB would mean that people would sort out their housing as they saw fit.

I could see single mothers suddenly getting a boyfriend, (hey that was quick). Or teaming up with another single mother and sharing a 3 or 4 bed house.

Rents are comparatively cheap here but with one exception the only people I know that are living alone are on benefits. The employed people I know are either in a relationship (both working) or sharing a flat or house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there is.

But there are families who could make better use of space in private housing. Some of which is funded by the state via SMI. No bedroom tax for them.

At the end of the day, people with secure tenancies have rights, and those rights stop them from being forced to move to free up housing.

Maybe we should have such a law and force people in private housing to downsize.

Maybe we shouldn't, what we should be doing is building more housing in areas of high housing demand, instead of evicting people in areas of low housing demand and ending up with properties sat idle, which then get destroyed and demolished.

BUT - of course there is no so-called bedroom tax on people who own their own homes (or mortgaged) because they do not receive housing benefit which is towards a subsidised rent that is social housing

this is why calling it a 'bedroom tax' is so misleading. either all who rent should have secure tenancies and not be forced to move at the whim of a landlord

are you seriously suggesting a law to force people who have bought a house to downsize. If they are not in receipt of HB /SMI there is nothing to cut. It is not a tax it is a withdrawal of some benefit because you are under-occupying and do not need the excess square footage.

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know people with a room barely big enough for 0.5 people and they are being charged bedroom tax.

Another person who converted an attic due to overcrowding many years ago, and is now being charged bedroom tax, even though their tenancy states the property is a 2 bedroom, not 2.

I can assure you with absolute certainty that no council tenant is being charged bedroom tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://speye.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/the-bedroom-tax-is-dead-heres-why/

This has to be one of the biggest load of nonsense.

Surely the number of bedrooms your property has is defined on your rent book and not by what you do with them?

If this is the law and it sticks then people receiving LHA in the private sector need to start appealing the fact they are allowed fewer rooms than people in social housing.

Think there is some merit here. I have a 3 bed flat according to my landlord. However the smallest room is too small for a bed. It makes no difference to me as I pay private rent and bedroom tax means nothing to me!

But I can see a problem where a landlord has split rooms up (so he can sell his 3 bed as a 6 bed! :P).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT - of course there is no so-called bedroom tax on people who own their own homes (or mortgaged) because they do not receive housing benefit which is towards a subsidised rent that is social housing

SMI?

High house prices...

Are you suggesting we have a functional market where all properties are fairly valued?

this is why calling it a 'bedroom tax' is so misleading. either all who rent should have secure tenancies and not be forced to move at the whim of a landlord

are you seriously suggesting a law to force people who have bought a house to downsize. If they are not in receipt of HB /SMI there is nothing to cut. It is not a tax it is a withdrawal of some benefit because you are under-occupying and do not need the excess square footage.

:o

The bedroom tax is not based upon square footage.

The bedroom tax exceeds the government set value for a 'bedroom'.

Aye, I suggest a law to force all to downsize, if we are to have one, for the market is manipulated to such a degree that new housing cannot be constructed if needed. I'd rather we didn't have a bedroom tax though, it'd be far better to have the freedom to house yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the first-tier tribunal, its not binding and there has already been similar cases. Ignore it until the upper tribunal rules one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just been reading a facebook thread where someone starts off saying they are paying it and how unfair it is and there's far more people than I imagined there might be saying about being overcrowded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just been reading a facebook thread where someone starts off saying they are paying it and how unfair it is and there's far more people than I imagined there might be saying about being overcrowded.

Yes they are - whose fault is it?

If you turned on a tap one day for a drink of water and found there wasn't any, who would you hold responsible? Hint - it's not the person who last had a drink of water...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are - whose fault is it?

If you turned on a tap one day for a drink of water and found there wasn't any, who would you hold responsible? Hint - it's not the person who last had a drink of water...

A better analogy is being in a survival situation in the desert with just enough water for everyone then waking up in the morning to find that some members of the group have swiped the bulk of it and are insisting that it is morally unjust to expect them to give it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A better analogy is being in a survival situation in the desert with just enough water for everyone then waking up in the morning to find that some members of the group have swiped the bulk of it and are insisting that it is morally unjust to expect them to give it back.

That would not be a better analogy. The shortage of water is artificial and the person responsible is not of your party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would not be a better analogy. The shortage of water is artificial and the person responsible is not of your party.

I disagree, there is a finite supply of housing and an even more limited supply of social housing, even if we were able to overhaul the planning system it would take many years to rectify the situation.

My example considers the allocation of a scarce resource, your example considers a failure to deliver an infinite resource. Unless you think that it is possible to supply all the housing that anyone could ever want my example is clearly more analogous to the housing situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, there is a finite supply of housing and an even more limited supply of social housing

Well, there is now ;)

That aside, the real scarcity seems to be smaller properties for these tenants to move into. Also, we don't need an infinite resource, just an adequate one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, there is a finite supply of housing and an even more limited supply of social housing, even if we were able to overhaul the planning system it would take many years to rectify the situation.

My example considers the allocation of a scarce resource, your example considers a failure to deliver an infinite resource. Unless you think that it is possible to supply all the housing that anyone could ever want my example is clearly more analogous to the housing situation.

You have to ask why we need social housing anyway, because the rentier/land hogging approach means that 20% of the population can't afford the so called 'market rent' which is of course bloated due to rampant credit availability and false scarcity.

I guess the rentiers/landowners can live with social housing because they still get to keep their licence to gouge the remaining 80% of the populace as a kind of compromise agreement, which is perhaps why social renters are unpopular on here.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That aside, the real scarcity seems to be smaller properties for these tenants to move into.

Perhaps they could move into the overcrowded properties being vacated by the people moving into their properties?

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps they could move into the overcrowded properties being vacated by the people moving into their properties?

Just a thought.

Don't think it quite works like that. Why I don't know.

I do know the Council here is struggling to fill an ex slum high rise near me despite spending £90k a flat (mostly from EU grants) which were former studio's, and throwing in flooring, washer/dryers. hobs and 10 mbit WIFI.

There is an issue of trust that the council won't turn it into a drug den again, despite the cost, and the new residents are complaining already there is no access to Sky/Virgin fibre despite the Wifi.

And if you think they are 'cheap' they are priced at almost market rent levels (but have secure tenancies).

As studio's they have become totally unlettable.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.