Leeds leads on getting round 'bedroom tax'

jancee_2

Labour controlled Leeds City Council is assisting strapped tenants by reclassifying bedrooms as 'non-specific rooms'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/29/leeds-council-bedroom-tax-solution

Where Leeds leads others follow...?

seven-day-weekend

Are people who pay their own rent getting their rooms re-classified and their rent reduced accordingly? (If they have been paying for a three-bed place and it is now a two-bed with a non-specified room, shouldn't they be paying rent for a two bedroom?).

If not, why not?

Dogger69

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Are people who pay their own rent getting their rooms re-classified and their rent reduced accordingly?

Agreed, and those claiming LHA automatically entitled to the two bedroom rate?

clemmatis

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Are people who pay their own rent getting their rooms re-classified and their rent reduced accordingly? (If they have been paying for a three-bed place and it is now a two-bed with a non-specified room, shouldn't they be paying rent for a two bedroom?).

If not, why not?

Dogger69 wrote: »

Agreed, and those claiming LHA automatically entitled to the two bedroom rate?

I would seem to me totally appropriate to extend similar help to private tenants in a similar situation i.e.

in receipt of a housing benefit

with a tenancy granted as secure

with an agreed rent for their property

and

faced with a unilateral change in amount of benefit/terms of tenancy

and

at a time of shortage of suitable alternative housing

Next question, please.

princessdon

Has anyone emailed Leeds council and asked if none HB payers will pay lower rent? Seems only fair they pay the lower bedroom rate.

john539

Good for Leeds, 2 fingers up to the clueless Tory government ! :beer: :T :rotfl:

Dogger69

clemmatis wrote: »

I would seem to me totally appropriate to extend similar help to private tenants in a similar situation i.e.

in receipt of a housing benefit

with a tenancy granted as secure

with an agreed rent for their property

and

faced with a unilateral change in amount of benefit/terms of tenancy

and

at a time of shortage of suitable alternative housing

Next question, please.

Why should it only apply to those with a secure tenancy? They are already at a significant advantage to those in private lets.

Those in private tenancies had a significant change in their benefit entitlement when the LHA rate was reduced from the fiftieth to the thirtieth percentile.

All other criteria are met - so you're in agreement, yes?

LL30

Nottingham is going a good'un with this also. Several news reports about it a month or so a go, and tomorrow I move into a 3 bed HA house, sorry, that's 2 bed and a study. Same houses are being sold as 3 bed on the estate. The HA have put an occupation limit of 3 people on the houses available with them. Madness...

clemmatis

Dogger69 wrote: »

Why should it only apply to those with a secure tenancy?

Because people in secure tenancies have been led to believe they have a secure tenancy.

In answer to your possibly implied question, I would reform private tenancy law and try to reduce private rents.

They are already at a significant advantage to those in private lets.

They are in theory and in general more secure, yes. But why level down? (See above.)

Those in private tenancies had a significant change in their benefit entitlement when the LHA rate was reduced from the fiftieth to the thirtieth percentile.

I hadn't realised existing private tenants receiving a housing benefit and an agreed rent had been faced with paying more for the same property (because of a change in LHA) or moving out. I would have supported helping them -- opposed the application of the change to them and/or supported help for them to move, yes indeed.

All other criteria are met - so you're in agreement, yes?

Agreement on what? I would want support for both groups of tenants in the situation/s I have outlined.

Arachne_2

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Are people who pay their own rent getting their rooms re-classified and their rent reduced accordingly? (If they have been paying for a three-bed place and it is now a two-bed with a non-specified room, shouldn't they be paying rent for a two bedroom?).

If not, why not?

Completely agree. What's good for the goose etc etc.

princessdon

clemmatis wrote: »

Because people in secure tenancies have been led to believe they have a secure tenancy.

In answer to your possibly implied question, I would reform private tenancy law and try to reduce private rents.



They are in theory and in general more secure, yes. But why level down? (See above.)



I hadn't realised existing private tenants receiving a housing benefit and an agreed rent had been faced with paying more for the same property (because of a change in LHA) or moving out. I would have supported helping them -- opposed the application of the change to them and/or supported help for them to move, yes indeed.





Agreement on what? I would want support for both groups of tenants in the situation/s I have outlined.

They reduced the LHA to the lowest 30% a few years ago, that is why many pay more in rent privately as 70% are above the limit.