WHAT IS IT?

A forthcoming change in housing benefit rules that will cut the amount of benefit that people will recieve if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home. This change will come into force from April 2013 and will apply to all tenants of working age who are not eligible for exemption (see below).

Typically claimants receive between £50 and £100 a week but families deemed to have too much living space by their local authorities will receive a reduced payment. The government’s “size criteria” will be used to assess families for the number of bedrooms they actually need.

The cut will be a fixed percentage of the Housing Benefit eligible rent. The Government has said that this will be set at 14% for one extra bedroom and 25% for two or more extra bedrooms.

“SIZE CRITERIA”

• Children under 16 of same gender expected to share
• Children under 10 expected to share regardless of gender

WHO WILL BE AFFECTED?

• Separated parents who share the care of their children and who may have been allocated an extra bedroom to reflect this. Benefit rules mean that there must be a designated ‘main carer’ for children (who receives the extra benefit)
• Couples who use their ‘spare’ bedroom when recovering from an illness or operation - If a full-time carer is a husband, wife or partner, then they will be expected to share a room.
• Disabled children
• Parents whose children visit but are not part of the household (this will include students if they do not sleep at home for at least two weeks a year. NOTE: when universal credit comes in from this autumn, students will need to be at home for at least six months to avoid a benefit cut.
• From April, claimants with a paying lodger will be allowed to keep the first £20 of weekly rent. But housing benefit will be then be cut, pound for pound, on the rest of the rent they receive NOTE: when universal credit comes in from this autumn, housing benefit will be cut, but tenants will be allowed to keep all the rental income (although only the first £4,250 of annual rent is free of income tax)

EXEMPTIONS AND U-TURNS

• 5,000 approved foster carers in the UK will continue to receive rent payments towards an “additional room” as long as they have fostered a child or become an approved foster carer in the previous 12 months.
• Families with adult children serving in the armed forces will also be exempt from the changes, even when on overseas deployment. They will be treated as if they were continuing to live at home.
• Bereaved families will be given a year’s exemption to rearrange their housing affairs.
• Disabled tenants (and children) who need non resident overnight carer’s will be allowed an extra bedroom
• There is epected to be some discretionary support for those whose homes have had to be significantly adapted and those with long-term medical conditions which create difficulties in sharing a bedroom.

THE OFFICIAL JUSTIFICATION

The government argues the changes will help cut the £23bn annual bill for housing benefit, free up more living space for overcrowded families, and encourage able people to work. It’s estimated that over half a million tenants will be affected when the new rules take effect and the savings to the taxpayer will amount to £540m.

MY THOUGHTS

I’ve given this lots of thought and consider the bedroom tax to be a necessary evil. It’s no doubt a controversial change that is estimated to affect 655,000 households (roughly a third of social sector claimants) and naturally there is considerable opposition - but just what is the alternative?

On a personal level, as a family who rent a house privately we will not be affected by these changes. Our current home has just 2 bedrooms (1 for Craig and I, and 1 for our son) and we aren’t likely to upgrade to a 3 bedroom house when we extend our family. A new addition will sleep with Craig and I for 6 months, then share a room Dexter until they are of an age where they need privacy. I don’t consider this to be a compromise, it makes financial sense. I don’t feel it is asking too much of those on benefits to subscribe to the same.

We live on one wage through choice as we made the decision that I will be a SAHM, and I’m also suffering from anxiety (I do not claim for this). This one wage is calculated to be high enough to receive no additional government support (other than child benefit). Craig works 55 hours per week to provide for our family and we don’t have a lot of disposable income. .

As private renter’s, we understand that we do not own this house, nor have any rights over it. If our landlords decide to sell this house, we will only have one month’s notice to find new accommodation. I don’t agree with the argument that people in social housing should receive any extra right’s (or should I say security) to their home than we do. If their circumstances have changed, regardless of how long they have occupied their current home, they should be prepared to downsize accordingly. This is a reality for all non-mortgage holders, including my own family.

Much has been made about a lack of 1 bedroom properties in many parts of the UK (for both social and private renter’s). Yet this is owed in part to the current uncontrolled system of allocating social housing - it is inconceivable that it should be viewed as a reason not to go ahead with the tax. To me, it also seems that people are overstating the need for (and lack thereof) 1 bedroom accommodation, rather there will be a greater need for 2+ bedroom houses - bear with me and I’ll explain.

Currently the social housing scheme has been largely reactionary, and not adequately managed or planned. That is to say that when families grow, larger houses are sought and provided. No better is this understood when we consider that people with children are given priority on the social housing register. These people will inevitably qualify for houses with more than one bedroom. If they are considered the most urgent cases, we can not be surprised that the overwhleming majority of social housing is for 2+ bedroom properties. This won’t change as a result of the bedroom tax.

Although there will be some increased demand for 1 bed’s (as children fly the nest), it won’t be anywhere near the amount that has been agonised over by the press. It is hoped that as a consequence of proactive management of housing allocation rather than just ‘dishing out and forgetting’, will allow the government to better forecast the demand, and thus monitor the supply. Let’s not forget, this will be a constantly evolving state.

To directly counteract the current shortage. The budget today has introduced a number of new measures to make it easier for people to buy their own homes and move out of private rented accommodation. The ‘Help to Buy’ scheme, and extension of shared equity schemes (with interest-free loans up to 20% of value of new build properties) should make homes more affordable. For those with minimal deposits, the bank will also guarantee to underpin £130bn of new mortgage lending for three years from 2014. Coupled with the building of new homes and new jobs created as a consequence, these are welcome proposals at a time where UK unemployment figures are reportedly at 2.52m.

Of course I sympathise with those who will have to move areas as a result of these changes - but having no ties to an area if they are not working, I don’t feel this should be a reason to abort the tax. Unfortunately the current system is unfair and we have to do something. Overcrowding should always be considered a worse state of living than undercrowding. Fact. There will be uncomfortable consequences as a result of radical reform but we’re in a national crisis and no one is immune from contributing where there can - even if this is via the cutting of benefit previously made available to them. If they are working yet considered to be a low-income family, they should be given priority on the houses available.

Furthermore, until this re-shuffling takes place, we will be unable to see where the majority of shortages are, and assess the impact of increased migration to areas where there is availability. The government will then be responsible for adjusting levels of investment in affected councils (schools and public services) and homebuilding, ensuring a robust system henceforth. My only reservation here is that certain areas might become unemployment hotspots - I suspect government controls may then have to be put in place.

Inevitably there will be a significant financial cost in bringing in this tax. The cost of moving a family from one locale to another when they can not afford to do this themselves is a massive undertaking. We have to accept there may be no savings in the short-term but this is a simply a ridiculous argument for not going ahead at all. As housing benefits are currently costing the government some half a billion per year - it simply has to be addressed - the long-term gains will be substantial.

I agree with some of the discretionary measures the government have conceded. Disabled people with specially adapted houses, and foster families should be excluded from the bedroom tax - it simply makes no sense to force these people to move (In fact, I’d go further and extend this exemption to disabled children also). I do have some sympathy with pensioner’s too - but not if they have more than one spare bedroom - unfortunately old age does not preclude responsibility. For the nuclear families of those serving within the armed forces, I also feel discretion should be granted. I’m not an ogre!

The most important thing to note in the whole affair is to we need to do something. The government can not magic up funds to build new homes - a proportion of this budget will need to become from the savings made from the bedroom tax. Rather than expecting our government to pull us out of poverty, it’s about time we all took some responsibility. How can we possibly justify a couple with no dependents occupying a three bedroom home when we have other families living on top of one another in woefully small accommodation? It simply doesn’t make sense.

Join in the debate and leave me a comment!