Bedroom a boxroom. Am I owed money? Will I pay bedroom tax?

angrybuffalo

LeoFunk wrote: »

I hope someone can help me with answers to 2 questions. I have been living with my family in a council home for over 5 years. I am employed and have been paying rent for what is labelled as a 3 bedroom house, and, paying 3 times as much as some tenants that live in 2 bedroom properties. My issue is that the 3rd 'bedroom' is a box room measuring 45 square feet and can barely accommodate a small single bed (on the same wall as the window, so blocking the small radiator too).
So, as the authorities want more and more money off me, is there not any chance I am owed money for an incorrectly estimated rent for so many years? Also, am I safe from spare room 'bedroom' tax, if I lose my job and need to claim benefits? The thought of moving home would devastate us.

if you became unemployed and needed to claim housing benefit, you could be subjected to the bedroom tax. you haven't given information about the size and make up of your family, but if you have two children of the same sex, they would be expected to share a bedroom, so you might find that your housing benefit is reduced by 14% of your weekly rent.

it's unlikely that you do in fact pay 3 times as much as some tenants pay for 2-bedroomed properties, (unless you live in London, where housing is crazy beyond all reason!) the difference between 2 and 3 bedroom rents is usually much lower than 14% - a 300% difference would be extraordinary.

you would be able to appeal disputing the classification of the box room as a bedroom if it is less than 70 square feet - there is arguable case-law to that effect, but not statute law afaik.

if you think there is something seriously wrong with the amount of rent the council is charging you, it is worth checking, just to make sure that a silly error hasn't occurred - mistakes can always happen and when they get onto a computer system they will stick until removed, obviously... but realistically if you have been paying the rent for five years, without querying it, i expect you are exaggerating...:cool:

princessdon

angrybuffalo wrote: »

there's no one whom you can sue, you purchased your home of your own free will and cannot claim that the room has shrunk.

don't despair though - as the owner-occupier of a four bedroomed, or even a three-and-a half bedroomed property you are free to sneer at poorer people who are being cleared out or starved out of their wee council flats and houses, or be as snarky as you like.

Illogical argument. If there is a legal size of a room then it applies generically, not just to favoured sections like Social Housing Benefit Claimants.

No one ever forces some one to take a house in SH. They are 100% within their rights to refuse it (may go to bottom of the list) but no gun is ever held to their heads and many do refuse their first offering.

mysterywoman10

The question has been answered to the OP I believe.

The poster who asked about the owner/occuppier scenrio was going off topic and was not answering the query.

If they do have a query in this respect perhaps they should raise it in another thread? In house ownership ? Not sure which board that comes under?

princessdon

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

The question has been answered to the OP I believe.

The poster who asked about the owner/occuppier scenrio was going off topic and was not answering the query.

If they do have a query in this respect perhaps they should raise it in another thread? In house ownership ? Not sure which board that comes under?

You want to stop EVERY thread/post that goes off topic when directly relevant to the OP? You cannot stop people posting on an open forum, nor close a thread when you deem the question answered.

mysterywoman10

Yes because it is very disruptive and it is in line with House Rules.

How is it relevent to the OP's query?

Actually don't answer because then it will be taking it off topic.

princessdon

It is relevant because there is NO legal size.

Hence their reply was very relevant, because if there was a legal size, then Estate Agents, Landlords and many others up and down the country would all be facing lawsuits exactly like the OP would do. It would apply much wider.

If there was a legal min size, then anyone, no matter who or what their circumstances are would face the same issue. They have been paying for an room that was allocated/sold whatever, that wasn't legally a bedroom.

That doesn't mean retrospective sizing can't be brought in for the future.

It's like the 6 foot headroom on a door frame. Cottages are not illegal dwellings but there is legal headroom on a door. That applies to doors everywhere (built post the requirements).

pipkin71

princessdon wrote: »

You want to stop EVERY thread/post that goes off topic when directly relevant to the OP? You cannot stop people posting on an open forum, nor close a thread when you deem the question answered.

Wasn't there a thread before where mysterywoman was taking it off topic and when a poster asked them not to, they were jumped on by a few posters? Being asked things like who put them in charge and what a cheek they had for suggesting it stay on topic?

angrybuffalo

<<<Illogical argument. If there is a legal size of a room then it applies generically, not just to favoured sections like Social Housing Benefit Claimants.

No one ever forces some one to take a house in SH. They are 100% within their rights to refuse it (may go to bottom of the list) but no gun is ever held to their heads and many do refuse their first offering.>>>

what you say makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the part of my post you quoted. the illogical argument seems to be the one that you have going on in your head.

the dead giveaway clue appears to be your view of social housing benefit claimants as some sort of favoured section.

angrybuffalo

princessdon wrote: »

It is relevant because there is NO legal size.

Hence their reply was very relevant, because if there was a legal size, then Estate Agents, Landlords and many others up and down the country would all be facing lawsuits exactly like the OP would do. It would apply much wider.

If there was a legal min size, then anyone, no matter who or what their circumstances are would face the same issue. They have been paying for an room that was allocated/sold whatever, that wasn't legally a bedroom.

That doesn't mean retrospective sizing can't be brought in for the future.

It's like the 6 foot headroom on a door frame. Cottages are not illegal dwellings but there is legal headroom on a door. That applies to doors everywhere (built post the requirements).

What I actually said was -
“you would be able to appeal disputing the classification of the box room as a bedroom if it is less than 70 square feet - there is arguable case-law to that effect, but not statute law afaik.”

It was neither illogical, nor is it refuted by anything you said here, and is supported by Counsel's opinion provided to an advice agency in Scotland.

I'm not allowed to post links as a new user but i believe that if you google Govan Law Centre you should be able to find the opinion of Jonathan Mitchell QC

rogerblack

A ministerial reply in parliament has been made that says a bedroom is what the landlord says it is - with respect to bedroom tax.
Questions of area do not come into it.

(If this is strictly legal, and if the council is required to determine if something really is a bedroom is another question, which seems likely from the above advice)