Left Foot Forward looks at five things David Cameron doesn't want you to know about the Bedroom Tax.
The Bedroom Tax, which will come in from 1 April 2013 as part of the 2012 Welfare Reform Act, will charge people in social housing based on how many spare rooms they have, and will hit tenants aged 16 to 65.
Put simply, it means a cut to the amount of benefit a person will get if they have a spare bedroom in their housing association home.
Benefits will be reduced by 14% for one room and 25% for two or more bedrooms. On average, an individual affected by the Bedroom Tax will lose £14-£25 a week.
The bedroom tax is supposed to encourage those who live in social housing with spare rooms to downsize in order to make way for larger families.
That’s what it is supposed to do. But what impact will it really have?
Left Foot Forward has put together five things David Cameron doesn’t want you to know about the Bedroom Tax.
1. Two-thirds of
those whohouseholds that will be affected by the Bedroom Tax have disabled people in them. Down-sizing is often wildly unfeasible for wheelchair users due to the shortage of wheelchair accessible properties. In effect, the Bedroom Tax risks penalising disabled people for being disabled – those who cannot move to a smaller property will be forced to pay more for their housing needs.2. In many areas of the country there simply aren’t enough smaller houses for people to downsize to (which the Department of Work and Pensions accepts). A DWP assessment estimates that 31% (660,000) of social housing tenants will have their housing benefit cut as a result of the Bedroom Tax. What is likely to happen to those families who lose between £48 and £88 a month from their housing benefit because there aren’t smaller properties for them to move in to? Are they going to be evicted? Are they going to go hungry?
3. It will cause unnecessary misery and suffering. ITV has given real-life examples of how the Bedroom Tax could hit vulnerable people, such as the couple where the husband had a stroke and can no longer share a bedroom with his wife, or a tenant who uses her second bedroom as a sterile room to receive nutrition from a machine after she had surgery for bowel cancer. Both tenants will have £48 per month taken from their housing benefit from April.
4. The Bedroom Tax could cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds due to the likely increase in homelessness. A typical homelessness case costs £24,000, according to Govan Law Centre. It costs local authorities and housing providers £15,000. Evicting a tenant also costs a social landlord on average £6,000. The shortage of available smaller properties, combined with the inability of some tenants to pay the extra money, will see a spike in homelessness (bad enough in itself), and this will cost lots and lots and lots of money.
5. The new provisions could make overcrowding mandatory. There is no provision in the legislation for houses where the bedroom is only a single room. Children under 10 are expected to share a room as are under 16s if they are of the same sex. The rules do not refer to the size of bedrooms. A bedroom will always count as a bedroom for Housing Benefit no matter how small.
Use this benefits calculator to find out if you will be affected by the changes.
123 Responses to “Five things David Cameron doesn’t want you to know about the Bedroom Tax”
CHARLES BRITTON
You are wrong-the market for our gov. bonds has shown no sign of panic at any time regarding our debts : bonds are still selling like hotcakes because those in that business know that we are a safe bet, even if the government pretend otherwise with all their scare-mongering.
There hasn’t been any danger of a debt crisis, as in some other countries such as Greece, despite Osborne’s claims.
The World Bank haven’t demanded austerity of us and are in no position to do so-we went into it voluntarily and without any pressure from them.We are not borrowing from them, nor the IMF.
The countries which have required loans from those bodies have certainly been forced to cut public spending , privatize and deregulate-the usual formula(which never helps the country in question).
The IMF have praised/commented on Osborne’s policies at times, but he was under no obligation to listen to their neo-classical claptrap.
Mr Reasonable
Just a few thoughts that popped into my head…
Many need an extra room for medical reasons eg. home dialysis or for other sterile treatments, or because one partner has dementia. Should they downsize?
Many people have elderly relatives who live with them who die or have children who may die, thus ‘freeing up’ a now spare room. Would you be happy to tell them that they have to pay extra or move, and when would you do this?
Should ‘spare rooms’ be rented out by your landlord and to whom? To complete strangers who may pose a threat to your family or property?
Many councils do not rent out flats (with more than one bedroom) in tower blocks to families anymore, for obvious safety reasons. But if you are a couple without children should you now move to make way for a family with children? And should councils forget about the safety of children and rent out such properties anyway?
There is a lack of social property for single people. There is a lack of private rented property for single people. Would you force single people who have suffered sexual or physical abuse to leave a two room property to share with strangers in a bedsit or shared house?
What if paying “the extra” means that there’s less food on plates? What kind of choice is that?
How much money is this going to save? How much is it going to cost to administer? And will this administration be outsourced? And if it is, how much will THAT cost?? And how much will it cost in compensation when it starts to unravel and collapse, as it surely will?
(P.S.You say that here are “600,000 rooms being occupied by people who don’t need them”. But if they are occupying the rooms, then surely they do? And as for “keeping up with the Joneses”… what kind of social or privately rented accomodation allows anybody to do that?? None that I’ve ever lived in!)
Mr Reasonable
I believe other correspondents to this debate believe that being disabled and having a wheelchair is “their choice”, so they should pay the extra.
LB
Many need an extra room for medical reasons eg. home dialysis or for other sterile treatments, or because one partner has dementia. Should they downsize?
=========
If there is a need -no.
If there is not a need – yes.
For example, if you have a property where you can’t get into a room because you are in a wheelchair, then you shouldn’t force the cost onto others. It’s not a need, and its not in use.
==========
Many people have elderly relatives who live with them who die or have children who may die, thus ‘freeing up’ a now spare room. Would you be happy to tell them that they have to pay extra or move, and when would you do this?
==========
Yes. People’s circumstances change all the time. Nothing out of order asking this.
Let me ask you a question. So if someone unemployed gets a job, are you saying we should carry on paying them unemployment benefits?
===========
There is a lack of social property for single people. There is a lack of private rented property for single people. Would you force single people who have suffered sexual or physical abuse to leave a two room property to share with strangers in a bedsit or shared house?
============
And that’s because there are 600,000 properties being under used. Don’t you get the connection?
============
What if paying “the extra” means that there’s less food on plates? What kind of choice is that?
=============
But you’re quite happy for other people to go short of food because someone has to have a room they don’t need.
=============
You say that here are “600,000 rooms being occupied by people who don’t need them”. But if they are occupying the rooms, then surely they do?
=============
Do you know the difference between need and want?
They might want an extra room, they don’t need it according to the criteria. Tough. Having a spare bedroom for 600,000 is a want, not a need. So if they want it, they are going to have to pay for it or downsize.
Mr Reasonable
I thought it was 5300 bn that we bailed out the banks to the tune of? No?
Ok, if kicking feckless poor or disabled people out of their houses and onto the streets because they have access to a spare room will save this country from calamity then I say, ‘bring it on’!! Next, how about a window tax?