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

It's a tax.
It's unfair
It penalises so many people
Their aren't enough smaller properties to decamp people into
Successive governments have failed to prioritise the need for more, affordable housing.
Mollie - I do accept it isn't necessary to have first hand experience of something before commenting. However, I have both work, and family experience of the nightmare that is this tax. There are many 'vulnerable' people in social housing, we don't need the additional educational, social, mental and physical health problems that will inevitably follow if this policy isn't ditched very quickly.
No one who is opposed to this tax, is supportive of families living in B&B. But as others have already said, more evictions won't solve that problem.

Apparently the Shard is still empty. Think how many homeless or overcrowded families that could take. Only one office space taken, and that's by an insolvency practice. The irony.
I do hope the Qatari owners have to pay business rates and council tax on the building.

Well said, Absent. Most people just talk about houses for people on benefits, not homes. It looks like only people who can buy their own properties can have homes and family connections and keep the same neighbours. People who rent have to go where they are put.
I read over the weekend about estate agents having open days for places to let, and having sealed bids. The highest offer wins. Where do people who have their housing benefit capped stand in that system?
Out on the streets, probably.

I am very grateful that we were able to afford our own house. I expect a lot of people in social housing and rented accommodation would like to buy their own house but simply can't afford to. They will have to pay rent for the rest of their lives, or a proportion of it, and they will never have the choices that homeowners have.

Social housing is cheaper than the private rental sector but that is because many landlords are cashing in on the housing crisis and are charging extortionate rents (and I am sure there are decent landlords and rotten tenants but I've heard so many horror stories about rented accommodation and I think there is a significant number of landlords who are just downright greedy and negligent).

Homebuyers in the past have also benefited through the tax system (tax relief on mortgage interest - now abolished). Homeowners who become unemployed can, after a qualifying period, have their mortgage interest paid (and I don't know if they have to pay this back if they subsequently obtain employment and their homes rise substantially in value?) This government is paying, through tax revenue, for the present housebuyers' scheme and apparently buy-to-lets are being snapped up (and house prices are subsequently increasing - making buying a house even more difficult for the less well off).

I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to have one extra bedroom and, as absent pointed out, we are talking about people's homes. Presumably a lot of us are happy and settled in our homes and would be distraught if we were told that unless we paid money we couldn't afford we'd have to move and would have little choice as to where we were put. And, as has been said so many times, there are not enough one bedroom properties for people to move into.

The number of people forced into B&Bs has risen substantially over the last three or four years and I don't believe this can blamed on those in social housing living in many-roomed splendour but on the fact that there is a shortage of decent homes and the cost of housing continues to rise while incomes (for most) are not keeping pace.

Excellent post.

Well summed up Eloethan. (Although there are also people in private housing who for various reasons find they are unable to pay money they can't afford and are evicted by their mortgage company)

I agree with you, Eloethan. Just spent this last weekend helping my son and partner move out of a damp, draughty, poorly maintained private rented house which they have been complaining about for a year, with no response from the landlord. The maintenance man who arrived just as they were leaving told them he is only ever called out to do some superficial decorating to hide the poor state of repair before new tenants move in. We took photographs to add to the file of emails and record of complaints made, in anticipation of the landlord claiming the bond could not be returned due to damage done (as happened to them when they moved last time, for no good reason). Sure enough, the expected email arrived yesterday, quickly retracted when they got both barrels from my son, attaching the evidence that the house looked better when they left than when they moved in.

Young people are really struggling now. My son and partner earn twice what we did when we bought a house, two highly qualified people who can only afford to rent and are at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords. Happily, it looks like the house they have now is in good repair and the signs are good so far. The only other choice is social housing. They want to start a family, but if they asked for a house that would meet growing family needs, it wouldn't be available to them, whether they could pay the full rent or not. Not much choice these days, is there?

Thanks for your post Eloethan, and also to you When, for telling it like it is for young adults. This bond business in private rented properties is a real £200 rip off isn't it. It's great to hear that your son and his partner were wise enough to take photographs.
I don't understand how anyone can support the bedroom tax. It was ideologically rather than research based and has already caused until heartache and stress to so many families.

This question of moving people out of houses and communities they may have lived in for years during a period of unemployment has always bothered me about this tax.

I support it as a principle but believe that there must be a more compassionate way of applying it. A long lead time, say a year plus would help, a limit on how far you should be expected to move. A family with school age children or those within 10 years of retirement should be able to stay in their community, ditto those with caring responsibilities. If people cannot find accommodation because of a shortage of the size accommodation they require their existing rent should be met in full. The cost of housing benefit has gone up not because of a rise in claimants but because of the rise in rents

But in the end there is only one solution. Build more houses. Lots and lots of them. If we did that prices and rents would fall to more reasonable amounts. However that will not happen. It is in the house builders interests to keep the price of houses up

Rents are driven up, not by greedy landlords but by a shortage of rented accommodation that means that rents rise to a level where demand equals supply. A basic economic principle. Landlords, of course, benefit from this, but there are still areas of England where rents are low and landlords have difficulty covering costs - because nobody wants to rent there.

I live in a privately rented house. My housing benefit was cut because I have a spare bedroom according to the rules however this room is our children's room which they sleep in every weekend and during school holidays when we have access. According to the rules they don't need a bedroom when they're at our house. We were told that when they stay we should let them sleep together in our double bed and we should sleep on the floor.

My house isn't just bricks and mortar. It's my home. It's my safe place (I have agoraphobia). .My garden is a back yard full of flowers and is surrounded by a six foot wall so I can go into it freely without fear. It's where my good memories are.

My rent is £425 a month which is well below the average rent for this area (£530) so it's not as if I'm living in an over expensive house.

How can this be fair?

I live in a large 4bedroomed house. I am on my own. It is expensive to run, but I can afford it. It's adapted for my needs and I'm not moving.
I, at one time employed a cleaner who had a 4bed council house. The coiuncil offered her a smaller property, but she refused to downsize. It transpired she was claiming sickness benefit while working and claiming housing benefit.
In this town we have shortage of larger council houses and a lot of overcrowded properties.
I do wonder what has happened yo her?

vampq I think that the council opinion in your case is unreasonable. I presume you've appealed?

They rigidly apply the rule. Apparently children only officially exist in the household that the Child Benefit is paid to. The fact that they spend so much time here is irrelevant as far as the council is concerned.

Even if we didn't have children the bedroom tax is unfair. As I said we live in a small house that costs below the local average. It's not a family sized house. Even if we could move there are no one bedroom properties available. So in effect we're being punished for being unable to move.

I don't necessarily think this tax is unfair. There are people who, as Galen pointed, are simply screwing the system.
But I do think everyone is entitled to one spare bedroom. There are times when friends or family come to visit, or one partner may need to sleep separately for health reasons. Talking to people about this issue the majority would seem to agree to this sort of compromise.

Aka, that's what this whole thing is about. According to the government, if you are on housing benefit you are not allowed a spare room for guests, or even family to stay at weekends.
Vampirequeen, how long have you lived there and been claiming housing benefit?
Apparently if you have been claiming benefit since 1996, you do not have to pay. IDS got it wrong. I think it's all about it on the False Economy website.

Vampirequeen, I seem to recall you live in either East Yorkshire or Hull.
You need to send a letter to the council.
I think there is a letter on the website mentioned in the OP.
Joe Halewood has written lots on the bedroom tax.

www.shelter.org.uk explains it really well, and tells you what to do if you think you have been unfairly charged.

good luck with the challenge vampire

I agree with Aka I think people should be allowed 1 spare room. But 3 is excessive! Especially when they are being subsidised by other rate payers,

So all MPs should have to pay back the equivalent from their expenses as they are being subsidised by tax/council tax payers, Galen.
What is their subsidy for their second home if it isn't housing benefit?

I know that Jen which is why I feel the tax is unfair in the case of one spare room but fair when there are two plus.

Actually I think the same rule should apply to MPs, yes. They should only be allowed claim expenses for a one or to bedroomed house/apartment.

As their second home I mean. This would stop some shifting their primary mansion home into second home status.

I think that FlicketyB answered really well. Hopefully the new housebuilding will help matters. I feel very uncomfortable with taking away houses where people have settled, for the sake of one room.It can't be done anyway as there are not many 1 or 2 bedroomed houses to move people into.So, it just seems to be another way of raising revenue, the reality is that there is very little choice.Also, sometimes what seems right in theory, is often not the case in practise.Not just dealing in figures here, but in human lives.