Yes I heard the interview about it this morning, the government are apoealing the decision :umm2:

I am surprised that the grandparents managed to make a case.
The fact that it is based on their fear that they may have to pay the bedroom tax in future IF the council start actually charging them instead of it coming out of the extra funding they get for cases like this.
Good luck to them though.

The problem is the payments are "discretionary' so could be discontinued at any time

Yes, I understand their fear, I am just surprised that a case could be made on the basis though.
Not too sure about a panic room either, some nutter could set the house on fire or knock the doors down if they were serious about causing harm.


I have no problem with bedroom tax, just as long as every single tenant is offered a smaller property, until then it is totally unfair.

It is their right to do so as to appealing this 'judgement' from the Court today.
However how disgraceful it looks after seeing the interview with the Grandfather as to the child with very special needs,that a powerful govt is taking on such people in the Courts.
Over what, this financial penalty that no other Party in Parliament supports and all the warnings and criticisms of it from all quarters as to those having to deal with the stress and devastation brought to many of those affected by it.

The govt should do what is the only honourable thing to with this bedroom charge,scrap it.
I really hope the Court upholds this judgement again and says so in the strongest terms too.

To put that particular family and many others, numbered in the thousands like them, as was said on the Daily Politics, today, is absolutely beyond any decent defending of this shameful govt.

It should not however be also ever forgotten that the way this policy was formed and presented, that it was then only able to be enacted with the full support and votes of the vast majority of Liberal Democrats too.

Yeah I didn't really get the panic room either, what a way to live

Personally,I see absolutely no point a all in building houses/flats with only one bedroom, it leaves no room for growth of a family at all.
There are now very few dwellings for those affected by the bedroom tax to move to,yet they still have to pay the thing, even if they are willing to move but the local Authority has no smaller dwelling to move to.

It should have only ever applied, had I ever thought it something that needed doing, to only 3 bedroomed houses,with the 3rd bedroom if not used paid for but it should never have applied to only 2 bedroomed houses/flats.


However it must be costing loads to implement it, for the local authorities to have to keep chasing rent arrears,for the cases taken to court to get eviction orders, which are then suspended by the Court and small repayments ordered off the arrears on arrears.
Then having to put in the discretionary payments too to subsidise some people affected by the tax.

What an administrative nightmare it must have turned out to be and it cannot be saving much, if anything at all.
Far better to cut the losses now and get rid of it, just get more dwellings built and get on with that quicker too.
A bonkers policy,badly planned and badly implemented.

I agree 100%
This policy brought in by the Labour party now needs removing.

:laugh: Naughty Johnny.

Totally agree with this.

Downsizing affects people who regularly have a grandchild over for the night and what happens if a late teenager leaves home for a year but then finds they can't manage and want to move back in with their parents?

I agree that not enough were built, especially if we now penalize people who have a second bedroom they don't use. I also think, so long as someone with a spare room has applied to downsize, the bedroom tax for them should be stopped.

I know someone who has been waiting for over a year to downsize but there's nothing available. When some friends on the same estate who are on the waiting list for a bigger flat suggested they swap, the council wouldn't allow it. :shrug: The one with the two bed flat has got into rent arrears and threatened with eviction even though she's trying her best to downsize.

I'm not sure why you believe it was brought in by the Labour party Johnny. It was brought in by David Cameron and Nick Clegg's. Labour wants to ban it.

The bedroom tax and policies like it are the reason i would never in my life vote Tory.It's a pity the Labour party are so far out of touch with reality aswell and the Lib Dems don't know what they stand for.

What's really unfair is, those on benefits who rent from the private sector don't get penalized for having a spare room and private sector rentals are usually higher than social housing. Why is this only applicable to social housing ?

You can harp on about that till the cows come home if you want and we have discussed this at length before but since you ignore all my points as to it I see no point in humouring you any more as to it.
It was a Labour plan that is 'fact',, and in no way planned to be in any way,(even had they decided to go along with it), to the severity and extent the policy became and was only then implemented by the Conservative led coalition govt,that is fact too.

Continually ignore those facts if you must.

They want all social housing sold off and families in the ones they have, shunting those over housed and on benefits into private rented accommodation. They don't have the right to dictate how many private landlords have in their property, as long as the rent is less than the benefit cap then it's fine, the council don't have to fund repairs for private rented accommodation either so won't give a rats ass.

Yep, that explains things.

It was brought in to reduce the housing benefit bill and only applied to those over housed in private rented accomodation.

Which makes sense, place them in a smaller private rented home or social housing within the cap...sorted.

As it stands the reverse is happening, people are being turfed out of social housing into more expensive private rented accommodation, with as many if not more bedrooms than they had previously!

How does that make sense?

To those who have campaigned against the so-called ‘bedroom tax’ from the beginning, Wednesday’s decision by the appeal court to rule the policy discriminatory and unlawful will come as no surprise. To those who continue to defend the policy, this ruling should act as a stark reminder of its remarkable failure.

When it was first introduced by the coalition government in 2013, the bedroom tax aimed to cut the welfare bill and free up in-demand housing. The policy works by cutting the benefits tenants receive by 14% if they have one spare bedroom and a staggering 25 per cent if they have two or more.

At first, it may seem reasonable to some to cut people’s benefits if they are living in a house with one or more spare bedrooms. The idea is that this significant reduction in income will encourage the occupant to move to a house where all the rooms are used, therefore freeing up the larger property for those who require more than one room.

However, when you begin to look at the implications of the policy, as well as the failure to achieve one of its main goals, it becomes clear that the bedroom tax has been a disaster from the off.

According to the government’s own research published in 2014, almost 60 per cent of those affected by the bedroom tax were in rent arrears as a result of the policy. Furthermore, according to a survey carried out by the National Housing Federation in the same year, around one in seven families had received eviction letters and faced the prospect of losing their homes.

Even more worryingly, research carried out by the government’s Department for Work & Pensions found that three-quarters of those affected by the policy have had to cut back on food, while 46% had to cut back on heating and 33 per cent on travel. Clearly, the bedroom tax is having an extreme impact on those who are already struggling, forcing them to scale back on the essentials. Such a situation is simply unacceptable and confirms the fears many raised when the policy was first introduced.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6838596.html

Everyone knows that the Labour party introduced the bedroom tax way back in 2008. Facts are simply that Kirk...Facts!

Nobody is disputing that fact :/

Watch Parliament TV: Urgent Question on under-occupancy. It’s a very heated debate and worth watching or listening to.
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index...65?in=10:35:34

Brilliant! thanks red :)

Labour don't get off scot free but lets at least get the facts right.

The Labour government started a pilot scheme in 2001 in the private sector. This came to an end in 2003.

The Labour government introduced a similar restriction on Housing Benefit for tenants of private landlords in 2008 called 'The Local Housing Allowance'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Housing_Allowance

Clearly this was not a bedroom tax and still isn't (christ knows why they call it a tax)

That's not actually how it works... private renting people on benefits are given a "bedroom allowance" the same as those in social housing, and the money (housing allowance) paid to them is only enough to cover the "local average" for a property of that size.

e.g. if a family of 4 is in a 3 bedroom house with a private rental price of £550 pcm, but they are only "entitled to" 2 bedrooms and the local average for a 2 bedroom property is £450 pcm, then the absolute maximum they will get for rent is £450 pcm. The rest they will have to cover by other means.

This is actually a huge problem because, in truth, what they call "the average" seems to be dramatically skewed towards the lower end. E.g. for benefits purposes, around where I live, they say a 2-bed average is £450. I have very rarely seen a 2-bedroom property being rented out for less than £525.

Another example: single people, I think under the age of 35, only get a "shared accomodation" rate. Enough to rent one room, not a whole one-bed flat. Problem? In towns like this one, there is little to zero shared accomodation available. As usual, it's something that works fine in larger towns and cities, but is utterly useless outside of that.

I'd actually guess that the majority of housing allowance private sector tenants will have to add extra cash from elsewhere to make up their rent. Usually more than the excess charged for a spare room in a council-owned property.

That is separate to the spare room subsidy.

'This change affects council tenants, and those who rent from housing associations, who are housing benefit claimants. It does not affect private sector tenants who are already subject to certain rules.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21321113

It is, but I was pointing out that it isn't true to say that "those on benefits who rent from the private sector don't get penalized for having a spare room". They are. The amount they are paid towards their rent is subject to the same "bedroom number" restrictions as council tenants. So, they don't get penalised IF they can find a property with more rooms, but for the same rent as the average property with fewer rooms. Thats not very often the case, though... more rooms in a house = higher rental prices.