New hope for Bedroom tax appeal

nannytone_2

i personally think pwoplw going down the 'its too small to be a bedroom' are making things harder for people that have need of the spare room, either for equptment or brcausr their condition prohibits them sharing a bedroom.

when they signed a tenancy, they accepted it knowing how many rooms were classed as bedrooms.

my sons bedroom in london was extremely small by anyones standards ( 36 sqet) but i accepted the property as a 3 bedroomed house and no amount of arguing will chabge that fact

lighting_up_the_chalice

The judgement regarding this room was not just about size. The judge also took into account the usable floor area, the height of the ceiling, the rooms former use and the available natural light.

I would suggest that this judgement offers very little "new hope for bedroom tax appeal".

rogerblack

It's been reported that the DWP are appealing this decision.
The grounds are likely to be quite straightforward - namely that the judge improperly used the housing size criteria rules when they are not mentioned in the legislation.
It seems likely that little definitive will come from this - certainly not a wholesale scrapping of the tax.

But more likely requiring that councils consider more than just the simple number of reported bedrooms - and also take a view as to the reasonability of treating them as bedrooms.
Simply as the law does not really define what a bedroom is, and so a decision has to be made in each case.
They can take the view in each case that the size criteria are informative in making a decision.

(Please note, I am not the upper tribunal judge that will be hearing this)
(Unless my appointment is in the post)

Housing_Benefit_Officer

We have had guidance - if the landlord says it is 3 bedrooms and the tenancy says it is 3 beds - irrespective of the size of the room then it is a 3 bed property. If it can fit a single bed then it is a bedroom.

The legislation quoted regarding room sizes is a red herring as the legislation also says living rooms can be used as bedrooms.

jacques_chirac

rogerblack wrote: »

It's been reported that the DWP are appealing this decision.
The grounds are likely to be quite straightforward - namely that the judge improperly used the housing size criteria rules when they are not mentioned in the legislation.
It seems likely that little definitive will come from this - certainly not a wholesale scrapping of the tax.

But more likely requiring that councils consider more than just the simple number of reported bedrooms - and also take a view as to the reasonability of treating them as bedrooms.
Simply as the law does not really define what a bedroom is, and so a decision has to be made in each case.
They can take the view in each case that the size criteria are informative in making a decision.

(Please note, I am not the upper tribunal judge that will be hearing this)
(Unless my appointment is in the post)

I would agree with this. Even if the appeal was not successful I would expect a carefully worded judgment stating the decision was specific to the case in question and not intended to create precedent/ change the law. Judges simply do not wish to involve themselves to that extent.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244604/u6-2013.pdf

Removal of the spare room subsidy

Background

1. It has recently been reported that two First-tier Tribunal cases resulted in findings that rooms designated by the landlord as bedrooms were not capable of being such for the purposes of the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) regulations. This is because the judge
determined that the rooms did not satisfy the “space standard” as set out in section 326 of the Housing Act 1985 and section 137 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 which is used to assess statutory overcrowding.

2. The Department for Work and Pensions will seek permission to appeal
against the decisions given in these particular cases as space standards
do not relate to the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy, nor should a
dining or living room be classified as a bedroom notwithstanding that the
relevant Housing Act provisions would class them as such (see
paragraph 3 below). 2 A summary of space standard rules

3. Section 326 of the Housing Act 1985 and the equivalent Scottish
provision, among other things, prescribe what local authorities (LAs)
must consider when allocating social housing to tenants. This includes
the minimum space standard used to determine overcrowding and which
would be contravened if the number of persons sleeping in a dwelling is
in excess of the permitted number (having regard to both the number
and floor area of rooms available as sleeping accommodation). For this
purpose a living room is classed as a room that is available to sleep in.

Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy

4. This bulletin is to inform LAs that when applying the size criteria and
determining whether or not a property is under-occupied, the only
consideration should be the composition of the household and the
number of bedrooms as designated by the landlord, but not by
measuring rooms.

5. In determining whether or not a room is a bedroom the landlord may
consider a number of factors, but one of these must be whether or not a
room is large enough to accommodate at least a single bed. Where this
is not the case, the landlord should reassess whether or not that room
should be classified as a bedroom and ensure that the rent correctly
reflects the size of the property.

6. Where rooms are designated as bedrooms landlords should classify it as such notwithstanding that the tenant may argue that it has been
habitually used for something else (such as storage).

New_and_Improved_Me

In my opinion -

All those........that are working families with one parent working FULL TIME (35 hours or more) but on a crappy wage....so can’t afford a house of their own and live in social housing.........LET THEM BE….DO NOT CHARGE ANY EXTRA……. FOR 12 MONTHS AND ASSIST THEM FIND A SMALLER PROPERTY......They are not scroungers living off the state.....just made the wrong choices in life, have a crap job and need help.....

All family’s where both parents are working part time (more than 40 hours a week COMBINED)....living in social houses with extra bedrooms....LET THEM BE…..DO NOT CHARGE ANY EXTRA FOR 12 MONTHS AND ASSIST THEM FIND A SMALLER PROPERTY -......They are not scroungers living off the state.....just made the wrong choices in life, have a crap job and need help.....

IF either of the above two category’s refuse to move if a smaller property is found....CHARGE THEM as per the new regulations...

All other’s where both parents are NOT working or working less than 35 hours a week COMBINED....living in social houses with extra bedrooms....KICK EM OUT onto the street....OK OK…not the street …..CHARGE THEM as per new regulations

Single couples......Apply Same rules as above.....

Single parents....with kids....where it’s not feasible for the single parent to work....evaluate on individual basis.....AND SET AS PRIORITY for smaller accommodation….

ANYONE who refuses a smaller accommodation…Regardless of category above…CHARGE THEM…..

HARSH….I KNOW….

But there are FAR too many people in the country that seem to feel it’s their ‘GOD GIVEN RIGHT’ to be looked after by the state….It NEEDS to change….

EDIT:-
All this BOL**CKS about the third bedroom size is crap…In all my years I’ve NEVER once seen a three bedroom house where the 3rd bedroom is too small for a single bed.….

rogerblack

New_and_Improved_Me wrote: »

ANYONE who refuses a smaller accommodation…Regardless of category above…CHARGE THEM…..

HARSH….I KNOW….

Many people would be overjoyed with that solution, including those currently paying the 'tax'/subsidy.

Many local authorities for various reasons have sold off any 1-bed properties under right-to-buy - or had not built significant numbers in the first place - so there are no places for under-occupiers to move to.

An amendment that meant that people would only be charged the subsidy if they'd been offered and refused a smaller property was rejected by the government.

This was not a measure to remove spare bedrooms - it was a measure to gain revenue.

Most people affected are working, or disabled.

Mardle

What makes tenants of social housing so special? Not charging for "extra rooms" in social housing is discriminating against tenants in private housing. To me (as a private tenant) a better idea would have been to have phased in LHA for social housing tenants.

rogerblack

Mardle wrote: »

What makes tenants of social housing so special? Not charging for "extra rooms" in social housing is discriminating against tenants in private housing. To me (as a private tenant) a better idea would have been to have phased in LHA for social housing tenants.

The problem is that people may be housed in properties with extra bedrooms, though they do not desire them.

This is not usually a case of people going out and requesting a property with more bedrooms than they need - or refusing to move into a smaller one (In general).

It's someone applies for a property, and is granted a 3 bed one, though they are only entitled to a 2.
Because the HA has no 2 beds, just 3.
For the same body to then turn round and say 'because we have no 2 bed properties, you need to pay extra for the room that you did not request, and did not want'.