Square foot size of room for bedroom tax

Lou76

GlasweJen wrote: »

Well according to local gossip the houses being built for the commonwealth games athletes will be taken over by Glasgow housing association and Glasgow will suddenly have loads more 2 and 3 bed flats. They're being built in such a way that once the event is over transforming them will be easy.

Hopefully after the games there will be some re-jigging and then I can be moved.

I would move in with my other half but he bought a flat 1 floor up in a building without a lift before we started dating so although I visit sometimes I couldn't go live there.

This should be of interest to you, here's hoping you get one of the new houses

"The Athletes’ Village is at the heart of one of the UK’s largest regeneration areas, bringing a legacy of new homes and new jobs to Glasgow’s East End.

The site is being developed by the City Legacy Consortium which includes CCG, Cruden, Mactaggart & Mickel and WH Malcolm each of whom have decades of experience of creating jobs in Glasgow.

After the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games, the Athletes’ Village will transform into an exciting new residential community with houses and apartments for social and private housing. The private housing will be offered at affordable levels. "

http://www.glasgowarchitecture.co.uk/commonwealth_games_village.htm

AnotherDaveC

There is a bedroom tax calculator by Wirral Partnership Homes that gives you the details of how it works out how many bedrooms are needed, 2 rooms for adults, 1 room for teenage boys etc.

A bit more informative than just saying how many bedrooms you need, etc. Especially for larger households... Worth a look.

DC

kellandj

Big_is_beautiful wrote: »

This information may well have been listed before, but today a Police Office informed me of a section of the Housing Act 1985 sec 326 states that rooms under a certain size are not classed as bedrooms.
Here is the link.

A room measuring between 50sq ft and 70sq ft can only accommodate 1/2 a person, (child under 10). This may indeed mean that a room this small cannot be classed as an extra bedroom.

I am sure someone will check this out and correct me if I am wrong.

OH, YES!

Do the regulations define a bedroom?

No. The Government’s view is that it is for landlords to specify the size of the property and this ought to match what is on any tenancy agreement and reflect the level of rent charged. The bedroom tax will not take account of whether a room is a single or a double bedroom. A room either is a bedroom or is not a bedroom.
There have been rumours circulating on social media that room under 70 sq ft do not count as a bedroom - but this is not the case. The information seems to be based on a mis-reading of the Housing Act regarding overcrowding.

kellandj

kaya wrote: »

is it not down to the deeds of the property? If the deeds to my home says its a 3 bed property regardless of the room sizes would that not be the standard used for assesments?

Do the regulations define a bedroom?

No. The Government’s view is that it is for landlords to specify the size of the property and this ought to match what is on any tenancy agreement and reflect the level of rent charged. The bedroom tax will not take account of whether a room is a single or a double bedroom. A room either is a bedroom or is not a bedroom.
There have been rumours circulating on social media that room under 70 sq ft do not count as a bedroom - but this is not the case. The information seems to be based on a mis-reading of the Housing Act regarding overcrowding.

seven-day-weekend

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Well the housing act 1985 defines overcrowding not how buildings should be built.

But it does clearly state that a room under 50 sq ft is not suitable to sleep in! It isn't actually that small an area 50 sq ft it's just over 7ft x 7ft which is 49 sq feet!

That size is certainly suitable for a single bed.

seven-day-weekend

mrs_motivated wrote: »

One case I have had success with is.

Lady severely disabled and has a through floor lift into her bedroom, hubby sleeps in another room (as the lift takes up so much space that bedroom can only fit a single bed in) therefore 2 bedrooms are clearly needed. The hubby's bedroom is not large enough for a double bed and the equipment his wife needs, and accessibility would be a problem for her.

Initially he came to see me, absolutely worried sick (he sobbed in my arms). This is the reality, the worry and stress for already vulnerable folk is incredible. I swore to myself then, this is one family come hell or high water will not have to pay for their supposed extra bedroom.

Just for info I am CEO of a small housing association, but my work on welfare reform has been mainly though my other role, I am a exec board member of a national tenants group ( elected by tenants) to campaign on their behalf. Having access to ministers is not helping though. When they consulted on these changes, everyone response was to much to soon and not thought through properly. Our reports (although asked for by DCLG) were largely ignored.

I'm not unsympathetic, and the guy is obviously under great stress, understandably. Won't they be exempt from it though, seeing as the house is adapted for someone with a disability and two rooms are needed because of this? (One of Cameron's U-turns).

Would they not be better off, however, in a ground floor flat or bungalow where she would not need the lift and therefore one bedroom would be suitable?

I do think if the house is specially adapted, and it is that adaptation which makes another room necessary, then it should be discounted from the reduction in HB, providing of course that there are no other spare rooms.

seven-day-weekend

wigglydave wrote: »

When my ex-partner left 6 years ago,she left me in a 3 bed Council house,on my own,but with my son staying 3 nights a week.Wasnt a problem,as I paid my rent every week. But,being sensitive to the lack of social housing, I joined the local council downsizing scheme,where I was told I could have a 2 bed FLAT. Which was fine.......however,I lost my job due to no fault of my own....so now the council tell me I can still downsize,but i can only have a ONE bed flat,due to being on benefits,and possibly (in their eyes) unable to pay the bedroom tax. However,I can also stay in my 3 bedroom house (as they can't evict me)...so possibly racking up even more debt....I need the extra bedroom as ,I said before,my son stays 3 nights a week (he's 10).
So I have no choice...I stay where I am....thus depriving a needy large family a home...:(

You could take a one-bedroom and sleep on a sofa bed (or the sofa) in the lounge when your son visits.

squinty

kellandj wrote: »

Do the regulations define a bedroom?

No. The Government’s view is that it is for landlords to specify the size of the property and this ought to match what is on any tenancy agreement and reflect the level of rent charged. The bedroom tax will not take account of whether a room is a single or a double bedroom. A room either is a bedroom or is not a bedroom.
There have been rumours circulating on social media that room under 70 sq ft do not count as a bedroom - but this is not the case. The information seems to be based on a mis-reading of the Housing Act regarding overcrowding.

Whilst this is right - this is a direct quote that is just pasted from the National Hosing Federation website. Always good practice to point this out.

The address is http://www.housing.org.uk/policy/welfare_reform/%E2%80%98under-occupation%E2%80%99_penalty.aspx

This points to a more complete answer at

http://www.housing.org.uk/policy/welfare_reform/welfare_reform_news/social_housing_size_criteria_a.aspx


This says

"
Find out how bedroom sizes relate to the size criteria and statutory overcrowding.



7 March 2013


The Federation is aware of a rumour circulating on facebook and elsewhere that bedrooms under 70 sq ft should not be counted for the purposes of the social housing size criteria for claimants of Universal Credit and Housing Benefit. This rumour is incorrect. It appears to be based on a misreading of the space standards set out in the Housing Act 1985 for the purpose of defining statutory overcrowding.


The UC/HB social housing size criteria depend on the number of bedrooms in the property, and for this purpose a room is either a bedroom or it is not. There is no such thing as a half-bedroom, or a bedroom deemed suitable for occupancy by one person but not two. In principle, the size criteria regard any room designated as a bedroom as being capable of accommodating a couple or two children (unless the children are of different sexes and one of them is over 10).


It has been suggested that requiring two persons to occupy a small bedroom might amount to statutory overcrowding under Part 10 of the Housing Act 1985. Section 326 of the 1985 Act requires that a room to be occupied by two persons should be at least 110 sq ft in area (10.22 sq m), but for this purpose children under ten count only as “half persons” and babies under the age of one are disregarded. The corresponding minimum sizes for 1.5 persons, 1 person, and 0.5 persons are respectively 90, 70, and 50 sq ft (8.36, 6.50, 4.65 sq m), room sizes that are fairly small by ordinary standards.


The room sizes in s326 of the 1985 Act are for the purpose of deciding whether the statutory space standard is met, for which purpose s326(2)(b) of the Act specifically states that “a room is available as sleeping accommodation if it is of a type normally used in the locality either as a living room or as a bedroom”.


The fact that the Act counts living rooms, not just bedrooms, as available for sleeping means that it is almost inconceivable that any social housing could be so fully occupied that the 1985 Act is breached, since even if a designated bedroom is smaller than the 1985 Act lays down, the Act contemplates that the occupant(s) could sleep in the living room instead.
There may sometimes be a legitimate question about whether a particular room should properly be designated as a bedroom, but this is a matter for landlords to determine."

Welshdresser

Big_is_beautiful wrote: »

This information may well have been listed before, but today a Police Office informed me of a section of the Housing Act 1985 sec 326 states that rooms under a certain size are not classed as bedrooms.
Here is the link.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/68/section/326

A room measuring between 50sq ft and 70sq ft can only accommodate 1/2 a person, (child under 10). This may indeed mean that a room this small cannot be classed as an extra bedroom.

I am sure someone will check this out and correct me if I am wrong.

The legislation refers to statutory overcrowding and is used to assess housing applications, but unfortunately it has no relevance to the new underoccupation legislation.
My housing association is sticking to the line of 'whatever is on the tenancy agreement' If you accepted a tenancy of a 3 bed house and have used the smallest room as a bedroom and you can get a bed in it, then it's a bedroom. I've been fielding calls for weeks from tenants wanting to get their properties re-classified and getting abuse and grief from them but they forget that it is not the landlord imposing these changes, i'ts the government.
There are hundreds of situations and reasons why it's unfair but the landlords have no control. We can only offer advice around benefits and budgeting and try to help people to downsize but it's a huge task.
Many of our properties are new build pattern book houses with the accepted room sizes to get partial grants from the government towards the build cost, these homes simply cannot be reclassified without disrupting the income stream and long term financial viability of the association or ultimately driving up the rent of the smaller properties so the re-classification would have no benefit anyway.
I'm sure there will be many legal challenges against the legislation over the coming months which may give cause to exempt more and more vulnerable people, but at the end of the day tenants need to be directing their anger towards their MP's about this and not the people on the front line who can't change anything.

Big_is_beautiful

Welshdresser wrote: »

The legislation refers to statutory overcrowding and is used to assess housing applications, but unfortunately it has no relevance to the new underoccupation legislation.
My housing association is sticking to the line of 'whatever is on the tenancy agreement' If you accepted a tenancy of a 3 bed house and have used the smallest room as a bedroom and you can get a bed in it, then it's a bedroom. I've been fielding calls for weeks from tenants wanting to get their properties re-classified and getting abuse and grief from them but they forget that it is not the landlord imposing these changes, i'ts the government.
There are hundreds of situations and reasons why it's unfair but the landlords have no control. We can only offer advice around benefits and budgeting and try to help people to downsize but it's a huge task.
Many of our properties are new build pattern book houses with the accepted room sizes to get partial grants from the government towards the build cost, these homes simply cannot be reclassified without disrupting the income stream and long term financial viability of the association or ultimately driving up the rent of the smaller properties so the re-classification would have no benefit anyway.
I'm sure there will be many legal challenges against the legislation over the coming months which may give cause to exempt more and more vulnerable people, but at the end of the day tenants need to be directing their anger towards their MP's about this and not the people on the front line who can't change anything.

They can't have it all ways though, my local council have told an acquaintance of mine that she can take a lodger in to help with the extra charge.
She considered this, and a member of the council paid her a visit to offer advice on how to go about it and the legalities involved. Apart from losing some of her benefit because the rent would be classed as an extra income.
The worst thing was that the room was too small to let as a bedroom. Double standards????