New hope for Bedroom tax appeal

Morlock

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.

Why is it discriminating against private tenants? There are a lot of private tenants who have a spare room where the rent is fully covered by LHA with no bedroom tax, unlike in the social sector where a spare room automatically triggers a housing benefit reduction. The policy is far more discriminatory against social housing tenants.

Mardle wrote: »

To me (as a private tenant) a better idea would have been to have phased in LHA for social housing tenants.

I have suggested the same, allow social housing tenants to claim the same amount of housing benefit that private tenants are entitled to, which is often far more than social tenants receive for similar sized properties.

lighting_up_the_chalice

rogerblack wrote: »

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'.

Most under-occupation results from household changes AFTER the point of let.... separation/divorce, kids leaving home etc. Those allocated properties larger than they required weren't ever forced to sign the tenancy.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

Why is it discriminating against private tenants? There are a lot of private tenants who have a spare room where the rent is fully covered by LHA with no bedroom tax, unlike in the social sector where a spare room automatically triggers a housing benefit reduction. The policy is far more discriminatory against social housing tenants.

And there are FAR more private tenants who have to pay a top-up DESPITE having no more bedrooms than they need, unlike their SH neighbours.

Morlock wrote: »

I have suggested the same, allow social housing tenants to claim the same amount of housing benefit that private tenants are entitled to, which is often far more than social tenants receive for similar sized properties.

Massive rent increases for SH tenants who pay their own rent? Are you sure about that?

Housing_Benefit_Officer

I would halve the HB for pensioners living in 3 or 4 bedroom houses if they refuse to downsize and they reject 2 offers of smaller properties when there is a queue a mile long for families wanting that house.

I would have only used the Bedroom Tax if individual refuse to downsize once they have been offered 2 smaller properties.

It should only have been used where there was a refusal to downsize not when people can't downsize because of no suitable smaller properties.

princessdon

Define smaller properties. What if they say its not near the school, or doesn't have a garden, or isn't on a bus route.

Why 2 refusals, if they are apparently So rare, why not zero refusal and it hits.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

princessdon wrote: »

Define smaller properties. What if they say its not near the school, or doesn't have a garden, or isn't on a bus route.

Why 2 refusals, if they are apparently So rare, why not zero refusal and it hits.

Smaller property - property suitable for their needs - i.e. 1 bedroom for a single person instead of 3 or 4 bedroom house.

If they refuse to accept smaller property a second time then tough if they want to live in a vast house and deprive a needy family then they can pay for it.