"The Bedroom Tax" - Change in the law today for children requiring their own room.

rogerblack

Recently the government introduced legislation intended to make those in social housing with a 'spare bedroom' not eligible for so much help with their rents. (AKA the bedroom tax / removal of the spare bedroom susbsidy)

Following a ruling that the the government was discriminating against disabled children, they have today brought in 'The Housing Benefit and Universal Credit (Size Criteria) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2013'.
(Click here for them).

They allow an extra room for disabled children who cannot share a room due to their disability.
Children without mid or high rate DLA care cannot qualify for this exemption. It is not expected that difficulty in sharing a room will require further medical evidence - but the local authority does have to make the decision that they have difficulty sharing a room - it's not automatic on the DLA rate.

This amendment does not further define 'bedroom' - which lack of definition has lead to many different rulings in favour and against claimants who have argued that their 'spare bedroom' is not a bedroom.

This looks like it will have to wait.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Some common sense.

SternMusik

Good common sense indeed.

I don't get the fixation on the number of bedrooms in this country. All this does is drive down the size of bedrooms (and houses in general). Surely what matters is net floor space? E.g. a single person is entitled to 45 sqm, a couple to 60 sqm etc. A room under 10 sqm shouldn't qualify as a bedroom in any case.

Wishful thinking, eh.

nannytone_2

do you mean sqm?
10 sqm could be a room of 5 x 5ml that is over 15 foot long by over 15 gooy wide.
ive never known anyone with a bedroom that generously proportioned
growing up, my sons bedroom was 6 foot x 5 1/2 feet ... that is ubder 4 sqm!!

NYM

SternMusik wrote: »

Good common sense indeed.

I don't get the fixation on the number of bedrooms in this country. All this does is drive down the size of bedrooms (and houses in general). Surely what matters is net floor space? E.g. a single person is entitled to 45 sqm, a couple to 60 sqm etc. A room under 10 sqm shouldn't qualify as a bedroom in any case.

Wishful thinking, eh.

My maths may not be up to scratch....but 10 Sq metres is approx. 3.165m x 3.165m -or- 10' x 10' and is certainly a decent enough size for a bedroom.

julia78

Is it not all down to the Local Authority on the basis of a disabled child and this whole bedroom malarky?

Housing_Benefit_Officer

julia78 wrote: »

Is it not all down to the Local Authority on the basis of a disabled child and this whole bedroom malarky?

Yes since the DWP dropped their High Court Appeal against the Gorry ruling in March then Local Authorities could allow an extra bedroom if the illness or disability of a child meant that they needed an extra bedroom because they disturbed the sleep of a sibling. We had guidance but was missing the legislation - 8 months later we have legislation to work from.

Remember this isn't the Government being nice to children - this is the result of a High Court win in 2012 where families with disabled children took the Government to court and the Government appealed against the judgement but didn't drop their appeal until March 2013.

rogerblack

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

Yes since the DWP dropped their High Court Appeal against the Gorry ruling in March then Local Authorities could allow an extra bedroom if the illness or disability of a child meant that they needed an extra bedroom because they disturbed the sleep of a sibling. We had guidance but was missing the legislation - 8 months later we have legislation to work from.

I note that this will _not_ cover that case in general.
If the child - for example - shouts out and does not wake, but is not in danger and does not require comforting or lulling back to sleep - and there are no other disabilities, it's hard to see even an award for DLA low-rate care.
If medium or high rate DLA is not in payment - this doesn't apply.

It is arguable it does not apply if you have a disabled child that disturbs another non-disabled child, but is not themselves caused problems.

'child who cannot share a bedroom” means a child— (a) who is entitled to the care component of disability living allowance at the highest or middle rate... ; and
(b) who the relevant authority is satisfied is, by virtue of his or her disability, not reasonably able to share a bedroom with another child;”

'By virtue of his or her disability' - the inability to share a bedroom has to come from the disability - 'not reasonably able to share a bedroom' cannot be read in isolation.

This legislation does not apply to the un-disabled child that might be sharing the room.

Hopefully this will not be read too strictly - as the other interpretation (That a disabled child that disturbs another - the disturbance is done 'by virtue of his or her disability') is also reasonable, and LAs have little reason not to be lenient.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

rogerblack wrote: »

I note that this will _not_ cover that case in general.
If the child - for example - shouts out and does not wake, but is not in danger and does not require comforting or lulling back to sleep - and there are no other disabilities, it's hard to see even an award for DLA low-rate care.
If medium or high rate DLA is not in payment - this doesn't apply.

It is arguable it does not apply if you have a disabled child that disturbs another non-disabled child, but is not themselves caused problems.



'By virtue of his or her disability' - the inability to share a bedroom has to come from the disability - 'not reasonably able to share a bedroom' cannot be read in isolation.

This legislation does not apply to the un-disabled child that might be sharing the room.

Hopefully this will not be read too strictly - as the other interpretation (That a disabled child that disturbs another - the disturbance is done 'by virtue of his or her disability') is also reasonable, and LAs have little reason not to be lenient.

And we are not health care professionals and we are expected to make informed decisions. I ask for documentary evidence from health care professionals before I make a decision.

Morglin

The high Court ruled that this should be so, months ago, but I believe the court then had to get involved again, as the government still didn't act.

Glad to see they are finally abiding by the law.

Lin

rogerblack

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

And we are not health care professionals and we are expected to make informed decisions. I ask for documentary evidence from health care professionals before I make a decision.

The explanatory memorandum along with the bill said this would not normally be the case.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean in practice - perhaps the implication is you're simply supposed to believe the claimant.
(Explanatory notes carry no legal force of course)