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

Status.

There are people I know who live in big houses while their sons and daughters are squeezing their families into shoeboxes, all privately owned.
I have often wondered if the family home is so important to be kept in the family, why not just swap?

I agree Caz the bedroom tax was ill thought out and ill researched - otherwise it would have been clear that a 'spare' bedroom is a necessity for a sinnificant proportion of the population. Two or three spare rooms though are a different matter especially when there families waiting to be housed.

As regards to the private sector. We are, as had been already said, paying for the privilege of living in larger houses through council tax. Although that too was rushed through at the time and many properties are in the wrong band.

It is difficult when you've spent a lifetime saving and scheming to get further and further up the housing ladder to give up what you've achieved and down size, leaving behind memories of family etc. We did. It took two years of systematic sorting to shrink our possessions and another two to find somewhere. It's been a great success and very liberating.

I think things are changing and it's slowly becoming socially unacceptable for a couple or single person to live in a large house with several unused rooms whether in the private or public sector.

Jen tenants cannot knock down walls!

Your original post was about the definition of bedroom, Mamacaz.
Another problem is that those getting housing benefit continuously from 1996 are supposed to be protected from this bill, but many have been turfed out of their council houses.
Both of these were missed by IDS.
He has made a real pig's ear of bringing in universal credit which should have been in everywhere by now according to his timetable.
He has wasted billions on IT systems which were not fit for purpose.
Why is he still in a job?

Knock down the wall between the living room and the dining room?
I never thought about that. That's what has been done in my bungalow, so if it was as originally built, I would have had two spare rooms and would have been asked to pay an extra £27 per week if I had been living in rented accommodation. There'd be no wine then, would there?

It doesn't matter what anyone calls it - it is the regulations that matter, and they say that this deduction can only be levied on a bedroom!

But the government says it is not a bedroom tax but a spare room tax. So if you have a house with a living room and separate dining room but only one bedroom and there are only one or two people living in it, it would still be deemed that you had too many rooms and you would need to trade down to a home with only one living room.

Believe me, Granjura, I do sympathise with families in severely overcrowded accommodation, or worse still, B&Bs. It must be truly awful.

Similarly, I am right behind you in the fight to have proper suitable housing and infrastructure built.

Where we differ is on how we view the other social tenants in all this. They have been made a scapegoat by this Government IMO, and it simply isn't possible, practical or cost-effective to keep shuffling people around every year or so in an attempt to maximise occupancy.

The bedroom tax (and I will continue to call it that because it is still the most widely-used term) was an ill thought out policy, and is rapidly becoming the disaster that many of us predicted from the start.

A good post Granjura you've said exactly what I would have replied. I'll just add, this discussion was getting too one-sided, all about those already housed or even over-housed. Now at least the others have had their side put, if not accepted.

The problem is that house building is happening in the private sector, not social housing because this government again has made a hash of its housing policy and thrown money at house buyers, paid for out of our taxes. Guaranteeing people taking out new mortgages 20% of the purchase price comes out of taxes.
Why could they not just give that money to councils to build new council housing, two bedroomed to allow for people on their own or couples to downsize? Of course, they do not like council housing, do they?
Granjura, I've given you the figures twice. 660,000 households affected by the bedroom tax. 375,000 households in overcrowded accommodation. Both wrong, but penalising one group will not help the other. The government does not have the figures yet for how much ectra they have had to pay in rent for people having to move out of a three bedroomed house into one bedroomed private rented accommodation.
Or if it does, it's not telling us.
Got a roofer on the roof at the moment, Granjura. I also keep getting phone calls to say I can have a new boiler. Never follow it through because we had one put in in September 2011.

MamaCaz, I totally hear what you are saying. And I am really sorry to hear about your DH Durhamjen- and of course a second bathroom was essential in your circumstances.

Empathy is for all though- and the plight of families in overcrowded flats and B&Bs deserve empathy too, don't they? I am afraid life is not fair- and social housing or benefits are about providing a safe place to live in comfort- but not about extra bedrooms for occasional guests, craft rooms, trainsets or nicknacks. Many in private housing to have the luxury of those- but not all that is for sure. But that is life, I am afraid.

So, let's focus on the lack of suitable housing, and fight for this to be built asap, with the proper infrastructure- instead of fighting this so-called 'tax' (and I do not think it is a tax at all). This 'tax' was introduced without any proper thought and empathy- and is unworkable in its present form- which does not mean it is bad per se, with the proper exclusions and building programme in place.

Again, people in private housing often have to downsize or make true sacrifices- which maybe very stressful and uncomfortable. Nobody turns up to replace your roof or boiler in private housing, that is for sure. Why should people in social housing be protected way beyond those in private housing, who do pay tax on size and type of property btw.

I agree that there should be more smaller houses built. Builders build four-bedroom houses on a smaller footprint by using the loft space. They were supposed to be building houses that were suitable from cradle to grave. But they get more money for building bigger units on the same area, with comparatively less cost.
However, I think it is wrong that anyone should be expected to live in one bedroomed flats just because they are on their own. There are very few one-bedroomed flats available from any decade. They were just not built.
Aka, I gave you the figures earlier. 660,000 households expected to downsize, but only 375,000 families in overcrowded housing. Why do you feel more sorry for those in overcrowded accommodation than for those being forced out of the houses they have brought their families up in just because they have paid rent all their working lives?

We downsized from a five bedroomed house to a two bedroomed bungalow.
My husband was disabled and had problems using the shower room, so he drew up plans to turn the second bedroom into a walk-in shower room for him, as the bathroom was too small to get a wheelchair in.
Unfortunately, before the builder was appointed, he died.
If I was in social housing, I would be asked to move or pay extra rent on the spare bedroom. This would have been asked even if my husband was st9ill alive if we had two bedrooms. I admit it would have been very unusual to have two bathrooms and only one bedroom, but when you have someone in the house who is doubly incontinent, it's a problem only having one toilet.
I think it is just plainly wrong to expect someone in the same situation to pay more just because they have not been able to buy their own property.
No, I do not think we should confine this discussion to social housing, because we should all be able to put ourselves in someone else's shoes.

Empathy is what makes us a society. This government is good at dividing us.

I accept the 'nowhere to go' argument, it's a strong one. But then it still means that desperate families have nowhere to go either. So where does that leave them?

Second point, yes, we should confine this discussion to social housing. In my county alone there are 13,000 new homes being built, in all shapes and sizes. Mainly, I read, because there are more single occupancy households (1 in 3) than ever before. Doesn't sound that overcrowded.

No Granjura, I know that people in private housing often have to make difficult decisions based on affordability.
However - and I'm deliberately playing Devil's advocate here - couldn't it be argued that those homeowners who live in homes that are larger than they need are limiting the supply of family-size houses, thus inflating the prices and making it harder for those further down the housing ladder to move up into suitable accommodation? Overcrowding doesn't just exist in the social sector, does it?

Now I'll sit back and wait to be shot down! fear emoticon

As there is clearly a problem with a shortage os smaller, suitable houses/flats for people whose family has grown up and left to move to- why are we not fighting for these to be built, with suitable infrastructure, transport, etc (and so that groups of friends can move together)?

As Aka says, the damage done to families and children living in bedsits is comparatively much worse than that of moving to smaller accom for retirees with grown-up children- surely? Instead of using the lack of suitable smaller accom as an excuse- why not tackle the issue and solve this (true) lack of suitable accom? Yes, I am afraid it does apply to social housing, and not to private, as aka says. People in private housing are indeed NOT protected from having to downsize at all- I know so many who have had to do so to finance themselves in retirement, as they are not entitled to help or will prefer to make sacrifices in order not to have to ask. As said before, some find clever ways or alleviating the problem- like taking a suitable lodger, perhaps in exchange for help and support with a low rent (as we did ourselves in the past- and yes that meant sharing a bathroom- not the end of the world), etc.

And of course, special circumstances have to be taken into account. But there is no reason someone should have a spare room so a relative or friend can come to stay once in a blue moon, as was argued before.

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?

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

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?

Absent sadly none of that surprises me.

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!

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

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

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?