Bedroom tax
Caroline Abrahams of Age UK said: "Imposing the cap on older tenants will not only cause them anxiety and distress, it is also pointless given the lack of affordable housing options available to them".
[4] Supporters of the changes have referred to the unreformed system as a "spare room subsidy"[5] whereby tax-payers are said to have been subsidising social-housing tenants living in houses larger than they needed.
The aim of the policy was to encourage social housing tenants to downsize to smaller properties, freeing up larger homes for families who need them.
[14] The Conservative Party has tended to refer to the under-occupancy penalty as the removal of a "spare room subsidy" (implicitly taking into consideration the entire housing benefit paid out for the tenancy, rather than the net payment made by the tenant).
[16] At their 2013 Spring Conference, members voted to review the policy that looks at the "money saved, costs incurred and the effect on vulnerable tenants".
[17] In March 2014 Inside Housing reported that the Liberal Democrats plan to end the "bedroom tax" for all except those who refuse a suitable and reasonable offer of accommodation.
[19] Following their change in policy, the Liberal Democrats voted with Labour on 5 September 2014, for Lib Dem MP Andrew George's private members bill to restrict the number of cases in which the penalty could be levied.
[32] In August 2013, The Independent newspaper released figures which (it argued) showed that 96% of the people who would be affected by the changes would be unable to move anywhere else due to the lack of available social housing.
This is encouraged by the government; potentially, this provides the tenant with a net profit, and reduces the total number of people seeking alternative accommodation.
Michael Rosen writing in The Guardian has criticised how, under government proposals, parents living in social housing could become liable for what he calls the bedroom tax after only three months following the death of a child, something that inadvertently causes the creation of a "spare" room.
[35] In March 2015, The Daily Mirror reported that a woman had become liable for the bedroom tax after her son's death from a brain haemorrhage following an assault.
In July 2012, the High Court rejected the premise that the policy was a breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the effect on disabled people.
[38] In January 2015, it was announced that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom would rule in March 2016 on whether the "bedroom tax" was illegal on the basis that it unfairly discriminated against disabled adults.
[40] In February 2016, a decision by the Upper Tribunal involving Stevenage Borough Council considered the question of what constituted a room for the purposes of the regulations.
Judge Lloyd-Davies decided that a room "should be capable of accommodating a single adult bed, a bedside table and somewhere to store clothes, as well as providing space for dressing and undressing".
RR’s partner is severely disabled so 'it is accepted' that the couple need an extra bedroom for her medical equipment, Lady Hale said".
