Waking up to the bedroom tax

It's taking a little longer to let tenants know in Bolsover, but word is getting round that from April 2013 there will be some dramatic, and highly damaging, changes for Council tenants on housing benefit.

Across the country a few of us are trying to stand up for the victims of this draconian policy. In spite of what the coalition says the victims will be the children not the parents. However Councils can do something and its important they do what they can. Here's a piece setting out some of the issues and our demands - it's work in progress so let me know if you have anything to add:

 

The bedroom tax will hurt our children.

In April some 660,000 families living in Council or housing association houses and claiming housing benefit will have that benefit cut if they are deemed to have too many bedrooms. Of course the politicians who voted for this don’t just have an extra few bedrooms, they get a whole flat in London paid for by the tax-payer, but that’s another story.  Forcing families into smaller properties will ruin the life prospects of many children and increase the risks to them it is both an inequitable and a dangerous development. Here are just some of the consequences:

·         Children of different sexes under 10 and the same sex under 16 are expected to share a room. However there is no definition or allowance given for the size of that bedroom. It means a house with a tiny single bedroom and one double bedroom would be “big enough” for a couple with two daughters aged 15 and 8, whilst next door a couple with just one toddler won’t have their benefit cut even if they have two  double bedrooms.

·         Where parents have shared responsibilities for a child only the one that gets the child benefit can count that child toward their bedroom entitlement. When the child visits he or she will have to sleep on the sofa, and if there’s more the one child they had better buy a tent.

·         Bizarrely foster children don’t count in the calculation of the number of bedrooms the family needs even though Council invariably require each foster child to have their own bedrooms. On the other hand if you have a lodger you will be entitled to an extra bedroom!

·         There’s no chance of tenants affected by these change being able to downsize, there simply isn’t enough smaller social housing units available. Instead they will be encouraged to take a lodger. Here’s what the case review on baby P said about lodgers “One of the most dangerous of these situations is where an anti-social man who is unrelated to the children joins the household” (Para 2.7.8). Is it worth the risk?  

·         The shortage of adapted properties means that families with disabled members frequently have to take whatever they are offered. However if it has more bedrooms than they are assessed as needing the will lose benefit, even if there is no other property available. There is no exemption for the disabled.

·         The proposals are inherently anti-family. A couple with two children under 10 in a three bedroom house will lose benefits, but their neighbour who may be a single parent  with two children of the same age and a “lodger” won’t. Indeed the lodger can pay up to £20 a week without any loss of benefit. What reason is there for couples to stay together if thye are better off living apart?

·         Councils who have introduced pro-family allocation policies like not placing young children in high rise blocks will find it impossible to maintain them in the face of the demand from tenats for down-sizing.

·         Because the regulations take no account of local housing need they will result in larger social house becoming unlettable in areas such as Northern Ireland and parts of North England where demand is low.

What can be done?

The Coalition Government have forced this through, over-turning every amendment made by the Lords. However Councils and Housing Associations can act to protect children from the most dangerous elements of this dreadful policy and we are calling on them to sign the following pledge:

 

1.   To collect data on the impact of these proposals on the lives of children in their area.

2.   To give the highest priority possible to families who need to move houses as a result of these measures.

3.   To review the Councils own assessment of the number of bedrooms in each property and to refuse to recognise as a bedroom any room below 6.5 sq metres (the minimum bedroom size for a multi-occupied house)

4.   Not to evict any tenant who gets into rent arrears as a direct result of this legislation.

5.   In recognition of the Baby P serious case review to fund and execute CRB checks on prospective lodgers for any family affected by these regulations.

6.   To consider using the pupil premium of £600 per head to enable families losing benefit to pay for an extra bedroom to be kept so that children have somewhere quiet to do their homework.