Bedroom Tax megathread

[robbert69]

Could be worth challenging the eviction on the basis that the tenant was "not afforded the opportunity to make an informed judgement as they were not expected & could never have been in a position to predict a future Govt action at the time they took the tenancy out 30 years ago. Presumably, no reference appears in the tenancy document requiring the tenant to be in breach of the tenancy, by having not forecast the sudden introduction of this benefit change to apply to retrospective tenancies. As National Insurance forms the basis of the benefit system, similar to PPI insurance sold by banks, the tenant would have been fully assessed by the council for finances & both parties would have signed the contract based on the full expectation that the benefit system would cover the rent due under relevant circumstances, before being granted the property & presumably the council failed to impose an expectation on the tenant that they should not expect a future Govt to honour its commitment to cover the rent in the case of job loss, illness etc or included such a clause in writing in the tenancy document. In that case, the eviction may not be classed as fair & reasonable as crucially, the tenant had no input into the property allocation decision process originally & had no way to influence or control a future law change. There may be a breach of the tenant's rights to fair & equal treatment as their inability to cover the rent shortfall is not by their own wilful negligence but an event beyond their ability to change or control."

 

Until its tested, the above scenario is not proven & no doubt solicitors will have a better idea as to whether this defence may work or not

 

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/bedroom-tax-gran-threatened-eviction-1912546#ixzz2UcywgTSE

[*_ash_*]

Could be worth challenging the eviction on the basis that the tenant was "not afforded the opportunity to make an informed judgement as they were not expected & could never have been in a position to predict a future Govt action at the time they took the tenancy out 30 years ago. Presumably, no reference appears in the tenancy document requiring the tenant to be in breach of the tenancy, by having not forecast the sudden introduction of this benefit change to apply to retrospective tenancies. As National Insurance forms the basis of the benefit system, similar to PPI insurance sold by banks, the tenant would have been fully assessed by the council for finances & both parties would have signed the contract based on the full expectation that the benefit system would cover the rent due under relevant circumstances, before being granted the property & presumably the council failed to impose an expectation on the tenant that they should not expect a future Govt to honour its commitment to cover the rent in the case of job loss, illness etc or included such a clause in writing in the tenancy document. In that case, the eviction may not be classed as fair & reasonable as crucially, the tenant had no input into the property allocation decision process originally & had no way to influence or control a future law change. There may be a breach of the tenant's rights to fair & equal treatment as their inability to cover the rent shortfall is not by their own wilful negligence but an event beyond their ability to change or control."

 

Until its tested, the above scenario is not proven & no doubt solicitors will have a better idea as to whether this defence may work or not

 

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/bedroom-tax-gran-threatened-eviction-1912546#ixzz2UcywgTSE

 

It probably could work, if it was a tax on a bedroom. Since it isn't tax on a bedroom, I doubt it would work.

 

In a tenancy agreement, it will state in legal jargon that you have to pay for the use of this property. It won't mention what the cost will be in 30 years, or how it will be paid for.

[robbert69]

SO I WAS THINKING ON THE RIGHT LINES IN THE FIRST PLACE http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4946229/The-bedroom-tax-is-illegal.html

[truman]

SO I WAS THINKING ON THE RIGHT LINES IN THE FIRST PLACE http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4946229/The-bedroom-tax-is-illegal.html

 

None of that proves any illegality with respect to the benefit change...

[robbert69]

eat your art out ecconoob:hihi:

 

---------- Post added 29-05-2013 at 15:53 ----------

 

None of that proves any illegality with respect to the benefit change...

we will have to see what happens

 

---------- Post added 29-05-2013 at 17:04 ----------

 

Leeds council has come up with a novel way of sidestepping the controversial bedroom tax: reclassifying more than 800 "spare" rooms in its social homes as "non-specific rooms".

The creative wordplay means tenants in affected properties are not classed as underoccupying their homes and do not have to pay a surcharge as a result.

The government's housing welfare reform, which came into effect in April, reduced housing benefit to council or housing association tenants, who ministers claim have more bedrooms than they need. The measure is estimated to have affected around 660,000 people, who are losing an average of £14 a week.

But in what appears to be a legitimate loophole, Leeds council is to reclassify around 837 spare bedrooms. Those who have already been subject to the bedroom tax and have lost out on housing benefit in the last two months are set to be refunded.

 

 

Read the full article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/29/leeds-council-bedroom-tax-solution#ixzz2UhLDC9Be

[sheff1johnny]

Why the bedroom tax just will not work.

If the council swapped all over the properties, and made single people live in one bedroom properties, moved families into two bedroom properties, or three bedroom properties, depending on situation:

All the housing benefit would then have to be paid by Sheffield City Council. Is it in the council's best interest to keep people in the homes they have at the moment, as they would lose out on a lot of income.

If this policy was as the tories would have you believe, about helping people, they would reward councils when a designated correct tennant is moved into the right property. It is instead a tax (SURCHARGE), on the disabled, unemployed.

And if people want a good way of ending the council tax, ask for weekly payment slips, it will cost more in admin that what they raise.

[I1L2T3]

None of that proves any illegality with respect to the benefit change...

 

We'll see when it goes to court.

 

As the Tory says they have a duty to help people on the waiting list. If so they better stary building housing units because whichever way you cut it there simply aren't enough to satisfy the demand. There hasn't been for perhaps 20 years, for which Labour and Tory governments should be ashamed.

[sheff1johnny]

hard to believe that such an easy policy isn't working. people who have no money aren't playing ball, and paying their rent, their damned hunger getting in the way, the choice of food or rent, I know which one I'd choose. rent arrears are rising nationally because people can not find the extra money needed to pay. and anyone who says the bedroom tax is not a tax, is road tax not a tax, as no one is making you have a car, tax on cigarettes isn't really a tax, as it your choice

[Beccyboop]

Hopefully they are all on a waiting list for a property with fewer bedrooms!

[sheff1johnny]

Hopefully they are all on a waiting list for a property with fewer bedrooms!

 

yes all waiting for the elusive 70 1 bedroom properties.