Could the Bedroom Tax be about to go pear-shaped?

I do hope so.

So do I.

This has been argued since the tax came in. That's why the Tories started calling it the spare room tax instead of the bedroom tax.
However, what difference will it make to those who have already moved because of it? Will they be given there previous homes back? I doubt it.
Will they be given their money back? The councils have once again had money taken off them because they are deemed to have so much extra money from the spare room tax.
It's a mess which should have been sorted out by the courts before the law came in.
This is a problem again of the government running the country and not being held to account by parliament. Too many MPs are frightened of the Bullingdon boys club.

it is not a TAX
it is a small reduction in housing benefit if you have a home too big for your NEEDS and where the taxpayer is subsidising you having those extra rooms.
I am so tired of angst for the 'poor vulnerable' social housing tenants who get most of their rent paid (which is usually much less than private tenants pay - who by the way are restricted in the amount of HB they get according to their needs)
what about the over-crowded families who could use (and need) the extra space.
if it was a bedroom tax - we would all pay it

aargh - this bleating still goes on.

We'll have to agree to disagree, mollie. There are so many examples of people who did not know they were going to be penalised in this way when they agreed to social housing tenancies that were legitimately offered to them. People who are on low wages and have no room for manoeuvre to accommodate this penalty.

Where this policy fails is that there are not enough smaller properties for people to downsize to. In principle I do agree that those living in a property too big for them should give them up to house a family unless they are prepared to forgo the housing subsidy.

Why is it that whenever a change is mentioned there is an immediate outcry of the detrimental effect it will have on certain sections of society, forgetting that the majority of people don't fall within those sections. As long as safeguards are put in place to protect the vulnerable then I have no problem with it.

i agree with you sunseeker there arent the smaller properties available ive been trying to downsize now for over 4years!!! im hogging a large 3bed house i no longer need and im stuck here until something comes up on the council housing list...ive tried swapping lists but theres no one in a one bed place that needs a 3bed place.... i also have mobility problems .... thankfully im not on benefits so pay full rent ..

Mollie65.
Quite frankly, I don't care what anyone calls it! If the Government hadn't decided that it didn't sound good, they would have called it the Underoccupancy Charge. It certainly isn't a "removal of spare room subsidy", as no such subsidy has ever existed.
And to people on a low income, it isn't a "small" charge.

It is also a myth that this charge brings social housing into line with the private rented sector.
Firstly, when it was applied to the PRS, it was not done so retrospectively - in other words, it would only apply to you if / when you moved house!
This hasn't been the case in SH.
Secondly, if I understand it correctly, while the amount of HB you can receive in PRS is limited according to your "needs", if you can find a larger property that does not exceed that limit, you will not be penalised (please correct me if I'm wrong, anyone).

As for the overcrowding issue, that is surely a direct result of the failure over a long period of time to build enough homes. That same shortage of property is responsible for high rents, and those every-increasing rents are a big factor in the ever-increasing Housing Benefit budget.

I agree with Mamacaz, having £14 or £27 per week stopped just because someone decides I need a smaller house than I've lived in all my life and brought my children up in I would call a tax.
If I have the same rent to pay, and less money to pay it, it's a tax. Riots have happened for less. People blocked up windows in their houses when the window tax was brought in. The equivalent would be people knocking down walls to make two bedrooms into one. And this is done by people who have bigger houses/apartments to live in in London as their second homes than they expect whole families to live in.
IT IS A TAX whatever IDS and his mates like to call it.

Social housing does not belong to the tenant, so they would not be allowed to knock walls down.

I wonder who is speaking up for families stuck in B&B or other unsuitable accomodation?

According to IDS 2 million families are in overcrowded housing.
According to his deputy, Esther McVey, 375,000 are in overcrowded housing. Yet 660,000 households are being asked to move to smaller accommodation or pay more for the house they live in. That cannot be right.
IDS is getting his figures wrong on purpose to stir up bad feeling.

www.houseexchange.org.uk has 50,000 households on its books to move either way, so that's one company that is speaking up for families in unsuitable accommodation.

We need to look at why families have become homeless and had to be placed in B&Bs in the first place - up 26% in the last two years.
A spokesperson for Shelter has said: "The number of homeless families is going up very fast, as a result of a perfect storm of problems in the system".

There is evidence that people are being evicted from "suitable" properties in the Private Rented Sector as a direct result of the Government benefit cap. These same people, if they have children, are frequently ending up in B&B because of this.

In other words, it is a direct result of Government policies, nothing to do with under occupancy in social housing.

It was people who owned their houses that blocked up windows. Other people did not have windows/ could not afford glass, so the comparison still stands.

Yes, Mamacaz and it's going to get worse. 50% of landlords have said that when universal credit comes in, which some people think is a good idea, they will no longer accept tenants on benefits. So where do they all move to?

Having had a tenant who "lost" his job and had housing benefit paid directly to him and then left the property still owing six months' rent, I have some sympathy with landlords opting for a blanket ban. Paying housing benefit as part of universal credit directly to tenants is a completely daft idea that benefits no one except the dishonest.

I agree with that Absent. I cannot see the sense in that. Hopefully they will have changed their minds before universal credit is rolled out any more. At the moment I think it is still just in Tameside.
One query, why is "lost" in inverted commas? This implies he did not lose his job.

He packed it in because he didn't like getting up in the morning. He also wrecked the house, beat up his pregnant girlfriend, did some completely horrible and unauthorised redecoration in the house and is known to be a congenital liar. Unfortunately, I didn't know any of that when the agent (now sacked) let the place. Somehow, he managed to move into a three bedroom council house with aforementioned girlfriend and the baby. Bitter – moi?

I'm sure all this 'we need to look at' politicising is very reassuring to families in overcrowded accommodation

The b****y window tax was intriduced in 1707. Have I slipped into some kind of space warp?

I quite agree, Durhamjen and Absent.

Also, the benefit cap will eventually meant that even in social housing, anyone with a large family who is unfortunate enough to be out of work (or unable to get enough hours to be eligible for Working Tax Credits) will not be able to live in a "suitable" house, as the capped benefit will come nowhere close to covering the rent!
We will end up with large houses standing empty (or sold off???) while families still having to remain in "overcrowded" houses.

It's all completely bonkers!

Absent sadly none of that surprises me.

MamaCaz can you explain to me why you think people should be allowed to occupy a house that is too large for their present needs, because family have grown up and left home, when there are families, with small children, in desperate need of these houses?

Why prioritise one over the other?

To qualify that ..I'm talking about social housing, not privately owned.

Aka, there are a multitude of reasons, but I will limit myself to just one this time: because there is quite simply nowhere else for the vast majority of them to go!

But just as food for thought, if we genuinely want to tackle overcrowding, should we really limit this argument to social housing?