Bedroom Tax

nannytone_2

Ziggazee wrote: »

So, mum was happy to rent the property as a 3 bedroom home when the taxpayer was funding all her rent.....but she now wants it to become 2 bedroomed cos she's expected to contribute to the rent?? Laughable!!

i never said that at all.

she was given a 4 bed eventually, and still lives in it with 5 of the 7 kids.
she isnt affected by the reduction if housing benefit

nannytone_2

bestpud wrote: »

That's how it would be here too, but only when overcrowding is in question.

well thats unfair too!

as i said .... they harp on about making the system fair ....
but to make it fairer for one group, you automatically make it more unfair for another

bestpud

nannytone wrote: »

well thats unfair too!

as i said .... they harp on about making the system fair ....
but to make it fairer for one group, you automatically make it more unfair for another

There will always be winners and losers when it comes to benefits, as there is in life.

Dunroamin

catz1ct wrote: »

Can people please stop posting things that are not true. If you have a tenancy agreement which states the property has 2 bedrooms then its 2 bedrooms. If the dining room is not counted on your tenancy agreement as bedroom then its not a bedroom.

Do you guys know that the council's have got this information from the Housing Associations/councils directly?

I had a feeling that this might be an urban myth.

nannytone_2

i accept that there will always be winners and losers in everything.
the council tax changes are being done on a local level, so it all depends where you live.
the changes in housing benefit are supposed to be national ( fairer)
but its still going to be a postcode lottery depending on how each authority classes a dining room.

so in one town, some people will have to contribute nothing to their council tax and lose no housing benefit, whilst someone in the next town, receiving the same benefit, with identical circumstances, living in an identical property will have to pay both ....

Bogof_Babe

luckboby wrote: »

Hi people I want to ask this question for my mum as I am confused.

My mum lives in a house with my younger brother currently at college and not working the property has 2 bedrooms upstairs and bathroom; down stairs is the kitchen living room and dining room

I've read and re-read the OP, and because of the lack of punctuation I believe the bathroom is actually upstairs. If my inserted semi-colon is correct, that would be the case. If I'm incorrect then the "is" after "down stairs" is surplus to requirements!

Forgive my pedantry, but this did lead to a lengthy discussion about bathroom location, which was quite possibly irrelevant to the point in question.

Incidentally, the particulars for our current house, bought in 1988, said "3/4 bedrooms", which included the dining room even though it has a serving hatch through to the kitchen. I can just imagine a lodger being happy with that arrangement!

Finally, you'd have to be careful with using non-specified downstairs rooms as bedrooms, due to gas safety implications. Even though we no longer have a back boiler, apparently we are not allowed to use the living room for sleeping as there is still a (capped off) gas supply pipe behind the chimney breast!

seven-day-weekend

catz1ct wrote: »

Well who is to say the person with the 2 bed flat also has a dining room. It depends how the landlord wants to label it I suppose.

My son and my friend live in the same block of flats.

My son uses his spare room as a games room.

My friend uses hers as a dining room.

They are classed as two-bedroomed flats. Just because you have used one room for something else doesn't stop it being classed as two bedroom.

I did not say that having a a dining room meant that the house was classified differently. What I was saying is, that that room could be used as a bedroom if necessary.


So, if you are a couple in a two-bedroomed house with a self-contained dining room, and you want to keep a bedroom free to use for something else, and you can't afford to pay the extra for your ONE spare bedroom, you could always rent out the dining room to a lodger and use their rent to make up the shortfall (and have a bit of profit).

Seems simple enough to me.

ComeTheRevolution

I'm guessing the landlord advertised the house as three beds for it to be a multi-occupancy rather than family dwelling. If the O/P's mother has been a good tenant and it looks like they may need to move out, the landlord may rectify the oversight on the rental agreement.

Someone has mentioned legality due to gas supply. That's worth looking into, as is size of all rooms concerned.

It's possible that explanation of an error on the rental agreement and invitation for someone to view the house could solve matters.

Otherwise local media may be interested.

As to the simplification of getting a lodger - difficult as most tenants prefer a multi occupancy house or bedsit rather than moving into a family situation.

paddedjohn

ComeTheRevolution wrote: »

I'm guessing the landlord advertised the house as three beds for it to be a multi-occupancy rather than family dwelling. If the O/P's mother has been a good tenant and it looks like they may need to move out, the landlord may rectify the oversight on the rental agreement.

Someone has mentioned legality due to gas supply. That's worth looking into, as is size of all rooms concerned.

It's possible that explanation of an error on the rental agreement and invitation for someone to view the house could solve matters.

Otherwise local media may be interested.

As to the simplification of getting a lodger - difficult as most tenants prefer a multi occupancy house or bedsit rather than moving into a family situation.

You do know that the landlord is the council/housing assosiation dont you?

ComeTheRevolution

After all that, it looks like the O/P's family will be one of many.

Can't post a link as this website won't allow me to as a new user but the dining room/bedroom issue has been in the news this weekend. Perhaps someone else could provide a link to the Sunday Times article.