Bedroom tax and private rent

MarilynMonroe_2

Hi, can anyone tell me if the propsed bedroom tax is for people who rent privately or is it just council tenants?

I can't seem to find a definite answer.

TIA x

BigAunty

The bedroom tax is a very poor description but nonetheless this nickname applies to the policy of working age tenants in social housing only (council/housing assocation) from April 2013 who will find their housing benefit is reduced for unoccupied rooms.

Private tenants have always had this 'bedroom tax' since Local Housing Allowance was introduced - they've never been given a rate higher than the size of their household, it's always gone up and down as the size of their household changes, and they've always had to find the difference between the rent and their LHA from their existing benefits (or move somewhere cheaper).

Except for private tenants, it wasn't called 'bedroom tax', it is simply expected that tenants who chose to live in a larger or more expensive property than their allowance would fund it themselves, not the taxpayer - few private tenants have unoccupied spare rooms, I bet.

Also, LHA rates have gone up and down regularly through very many policy changes and rate changes over time so a person midway through a private tenancy can suddenly find their LHA reduces even if their household size has not. Meanwhile, a single social housing tenant living in a 3 bedroom property would have all their rent paid for through Housing Benefit automatically if they were not in employment.

benefitbaby

Hi
The 'bedroom tax' will only apply to people in social housing.

Implications for people in the private sector will come later when the benefit cap and Universal Credit comes in as it will be housing costs that are reduced first.

MarilynMonroe_2

Thank you both of you.
Everything I have read has mentioned council properties but also mentions all housing benefit so I've not been entirely sure.

I'm in a private 3 bed but the 2 bed amount I get covers it. I was panicking they were going to only give 2 bed amount PLUS then take money for the box room which seemed so unfair.

Thanks again, panic over!

sniggings

BigAunty wrote: »

The bedroom tax is a very poor description but nonetheless this nickname applies to the policy of working age tenants in social housing only (council/housing assocation) from April 2013 who will find their housing benefit is reduced for unoccupied rooms.

Private tenants have always had this 'bedroom tax' since Local Housing Allowance was introduced - they've never been given a rate higher than the size of their household, it's always gone up and down as the size of their household changes, and they've always had to find the difference between the rent and their LHA from their existing benefits (or move somewhere cheaper).

Except for private tenants, it wasn't called 'bedroom tax', it is simply expected that tenants who chose to live in a larger or more expensive property than their allowance would fund it themselves, not the taxpayer - few private tenants have unoccupied spare rooms, I bet.

Also, LHA rates have gone up and down regularly through very many policy changes and rate changes over time so a person midway through a private tenancy can suddenly find their LHA reduces even if their household size has not. Meanwhile, a single social housing tenant living in a 3 bedroom property would have all their rent paid for through Housing Benefit automatically if they were not in employment.

Your missing the point, bedroom tax has never been applied to private rentals.

The difference is, even if you live in a property within the allowance allowed, you will still have your benefit reduced by 14/25% if you live in social housing, and have a spare bedroom.

Private housing is different in that you get an allowance and if you can find a house with 20 bedrooms, for the allowance you are allowed, and you only need 1 you will still get all the allowance, in the social property you would be deduced 14% for one spare bedroom and 25% for more than one.

benefitbaby

sniggings wrote: »

Your missing the point, bedroom tax has never been applied to private rentals.

The difference is, even if you live in a property within the allowance allowed, you will still have your benefit reduced by 14/25% if you live in social housing, and have a spare bedroom.

Private housing is different in that you get an allowance and if you can find a house with 20 bedrooms, for the allowance you are allowed, and you only need 1 you will still get all the allowance, in the social property you would be deduced 14% for one spare bedroom and 25% for more than one.

Whilst technically true this overlooks the fact that the LHA does not apply to social housing because social housing is subsidised by the government/LAs so the true cost of renting is not passed to tenants.

sniggings

benefitbaby wrote: »

Whilst technically true this overlooks the fact that the LHA does not apply to social housing because social housing is subsidised by the government/LAs so the true cost of renting is not passed to tenants.

Technically true? this is the whole reason for the bedroom tax coming in in April, it just applies to social housing for those people living in properties too big for them.

I understand what you mean as you are very very unlikely to get a property with more bedrooms than you need if single, but many families live in a 3 bed house and only need 2 bedrooms, or an older person who is now living by themselves after the family has moved out, I can't see this affecting many single people about to get a property but it will affect a lot of familes and older people.

benefitbaby

Sorry, I think I may have misconstrued your post.

I agree it will affect many people, that is the government's point of bringing in the tax (not that I agree with it - there are better ways to skin a cat and all that!).

The rents set for social tenants are well below that of private dwellings (hence the LHA does not apply to them) but how do LAs and HAs ensure that they have available properties to people waiting on housing lists if 3 or 4 bed houses are under-occupied - they introdue a 'tax' to encourage people to swap and down-size.

If a social tenant opts to stay and pay the tax their rental costs are less than they would be for a comparable property in the private sector.

The goverment would have been better to incentivise people in a positive way to move, rather than with threats of cuts.

sniggings

benefitbaby wrote: »

Sorry, I think I may have misconstrued your post.

I agree it will affect many people, that is the government's point of bringing in the tax (not that I agree with it - there are better ways to skin a cat and all that!).

The rents set for social tenants are well below that of private dwellings (hence the LHA does not apply to them) but how do LAs and HAs ensure that they have available properties to people waiting on housing lists if 3 or 4 bed houses are under-occupied - they introdue a 'tax' to encourage people to swap and down-size.

If a social tenant opts to stay and pay the tax their rental costs are less than they would be for a comparable property in the private sector.

The goverment would have been better to incentivise people in a positive way to move, rather than with threats of cuts.

It's all about raising more money from the poor and not the rich.

the government has said the average amount will be £14 people end up paying, like you say , social housing is cheaper anyway so £14 is hardly going to have someone move, moving costs loads anyway, they will just pay and be worse off.

You will know but those that don't, most housing benefit is paid to working people, so all this will do is make it that much harder for those people to get off benefits.

benefitbaby

I agree with everything except your first sentence, IMO it is a poor attempt to free up family size properties to try to reduce the housing waiting lists - they have just gone about it all the wrong way and in doing so have alienated the voting public and increased financial hardship.

sniggings

benefitbaby wrote: »

I agree with everything except your first sentence, IMO it is a poor attempt to free up family size properties to try to reduce the housing waiting lists - they have just gone about it all the wrong way and in doing so have alienated the voting public and increased financial hardship.

You are right about that, I would never vote Tory, I think Labour let the benefits get out of control but this is not taking control, it's targeting the poor and sick in a random way, there seems no aim to it, just cancel benefits then set up an appeals process that is costing millions to run and is overturning 40/50% of cases.