SarahBell Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35418488 The so-called bedroom tax has been declared discriminatory by Court of Appeal judges, following a legal challenge by a domestic violence victim and the family of a disabled teenager.They had argued that the spare room subsidy - which reduces housing benefit for social housing tenants with a "spare" bedroom - is discriminatory. Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Lord Justice Tomlinson and Lord Justice Vos, sitting in the Court of Appeal, allowed both appeals, on the grounds that the "admitted discrimination" in each case "has not been justified by the Secretary of State". -Everyone is equal but social housing tenants are more equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 In the private rented sector the allowance seems to be gamed by landlords in any case, as the way it's set up apparently allows them to extract a higher bedroom rate than the number of bedrooms they're actually providing, as long as the family renting from them qualify for the higher rate. See this Property118 thread - Am I getting the most rent out of Housing Benefit? - for details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushblairandbrown Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 The real problem with the bedroom tax is that it doesn't apply to privately owned houses too. Then it wouldn't be discriminatory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 In the private rented sector the allowance seems to be gamed by landlords in any case, as the way it's set up apparently allows them to extract a higher bedroom rate than the number of bedrooms they're actually providing, as long as the family renting from them qualify for the higher rate. See this Property118 thread - Am I getting the most rent out of Housing Benefit? - for details. Or, as I've seen on HUTH, a LL cramming another 'bedroom' into a house so that he could get top whack HB rent from a woman with 7 children. He was set to get something like a 14% yield - no wonder he was grinning his self-satisfied face off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assume The Opposite Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 I checked out one of my family members updated council tenancy agreement. The difference in rights is shocking. The section about decoration responsibilities seems like a foreign language to me in the PRS (going on 10 years). The bedroom tax is 100% discriminatory as GOV knows they can't fight back easily. Divide and conquer yet again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted January 29, 2016 Author Share Posted January 29, 2016 I checked out one of my family members updated council tenancy agreement. The difference in rights is shocking. The section about decoration responsibilities seems like a foreign language to me in the PRS (going on 10 years). The bedroom tax is 100% discriminatory as GOV knows they can't fight back easily. Divide and conquer yet again. What decorating responsibilities in council? It's your long term home, why wouldn't you want the right to decorate it as you see fit? Isn't that one of the things about PRS that you have to ask? Why is it more discriminatory than the PRS version which is LHA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.