It’s time to kill off claims that Labour started the Bedroom Tax
It seems every debate on the brutal Tory Bedroom Tax has lately been overshadowed by some ill-informed commentator claiming that the Labour Party cannot oppose the measure because it imposed its own version of the same thing on the private rented sector, years ago.
Such a claim was made on the Vox Political Facebook page yesterday (Thursday) and Yr Obdt Srvt promised to seek out the facts.
Thanks to today’s debate on the Affordable Housing Bill, there was no need to look very far.
As mentioned in the debate, Labour imposed the Local Housing Allowance in order to stop private tenants from abusing the Housing Benefit system by moving into accommodation that was larger than they could afford – remember, private rented accommodation is more expensive than social housing – and forcing the taxpayer to fund the difference.
Labour’s measure was imposed only on people moving into privately rented accommodation after the LHA law was enacted.
So, for example, a single person might choose to take a place with two bedrooms. Before LHA was brought in, they could claim housing benefit on the property and rely on the taxpayer to stump up for the extra space. LHA means they get the money required for what they need – and they have to pay for the extra space. This is fair because moving into the larger property was their choice.
As with ordinary housing benefit, if a tenant’s circumstances change for the better, the amount of benefit payable is reduced. Why should a private tenant expect preferential treatment?
It seems that private landlords, who have been charging more than they should, have been angered by the imposition of the LHA and have chosen to wage a propaganda war against it, claiming that it is the Bedroom Tax by another name. Note that they are not against the Bedroom Tax, because it drives social housing tenants to the private sector.
Compare that with the Bedroom Tax. The Tories have imposed a charge on people who are living in social housing that was allocated to them on the basis of their need and the accommodation that was available; it is not the tenants’ fault if the only available accommodation was larger than they needed (more appropriate dwellings had probably been sold off under a previous Tory government’s ‘Right To Buy’ scheme).
The Conservative Bedroom Tax was imposed retrospectively – that is, it affected people who were already sitting tenants rather than those moving into accommodation. It was not intended to combat abuse of the system but was simply a way of robbing social tenants of help that they needed.
And the Bedroom Tax was imposed in the knowledge that the amount of alternative accommodation available to social tenants who needed to downsize in order to avoid the charge was only a fraction of what was needed. These people were trapped by this cruel legislation and driven into debt – in stark contrast to the Labour legislation which only affected people choosing to move into accommodation that was larger than they needed.
There is a huge difference between the Local Housing Allowance and the Bedroom Tax.
Any claims that they are similar must be rooted either in stupidity or in politically-motivated malice.
Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
setting the record straight!
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
As someone who worked in a major Local Authority Housing Directorate before and after Labour’s introduction of the Local Housing Allowance I can honestly say that this penal piece of legislation caused utter misery for thousands of households, most of whom were NOT abuising the system. The Rent Officer changed from being an agency for setting Fair Rents to a Financial Policeman for the State , given the task of cutting the Housing Benefits bill by cutting Benefits rather than by controlling increasing private sector rents. It was NOT a ‘Bedroom Tax’ like the current Gocvernment’s system but it had very similar results. People in accommodation which was suitable for them and NOT too large found their Housing Benefits, over time, being cut and they were unable to fund the shortfall. We had households applying as threatened with homelessness every day of every week as a result. Landlords who had created Assured Shorthold tenancies merely had to serve the required period of Noitce on their tenants and they then became the responsibility of the local authority (if they were in priority need). I for one will find it hard to forgive Labour for introducing this policy which made tenants, often victims already, victims yet again in their attack on the increasing Benefits bill. Not once did they contemplate seriously doing anything about the increasing levels of rents demanded by landlords.
If they were in the same accommodation, why was their benefit cut? That does not appear to have been part of the legislation or intended by it.
From what you are saying here, it seems the private landlords were responsible for the misery by putting up rents out of greed or a desire to force tenants out.
Thank you Mike for publishing the truth, again. The problem is, of course, that too many people will believe these lies and won’t be reading your posts.
I would have no problem with the bedroom tax being used to force people into more appropriately sized accommodation provided that it was levied on everyone, which would include homeowners and those occupying “grace and favour” tenancies.
AND if the Government made sure that sufficient amounts of smaller alternative accommodation were available before imposing the charge.
Well, yes and no. The LHA is only for New Claims, but all you need is a small change in circumstances for your claim to become a New Claim. So you can be living in a house for years, getting max HB, then get a part time job and suddenly find you’re hit by the LHA. It’s not just for people moving into new properties (which would have made some sense).
Really? I’ve claimed housing benefit before and when I had a change in circumstances I informed the council and my benefit was adjusted accordingly – but it was not treated as a new claim. The only time that happened was when the council decided to close a claim, usually by mistake.
Really. It happened to me. I finished a PGCE course (I was allowed to claim HB as a single parent) and then reassessed as a new claim when I finished. It was a very badly thought out piece of legislation.
Or just badly-implemented?
Really. It is like the much trumpeted “transitional protection” for Universal Credit (which hopefully will never happen). This will stop for ANY change of circumstances, even those not related to circumstances relevant to your claim.
This shouldn’t be about pitting the LHA changes against bedroom tax, and, as someone on LHA, I am heartily sick of it. The LHA changes did untold damage to many people, including many disabled people. Rather than ignore it because it wasn’t quite as bad as the bedroom tax, surely we should support one another.
Don’t forget that private contracts are often short in nature. Most of those who were not affected then are now. Disabled people can’t afford the bedrooms they need. DHPs are nonexistent. There are cases of people having been moved into care homes. Two thirds of people on LHA have a shortfall in rent and have to make it up from their other benefits. With the 1% cap imposed on LHA, this is only going to get worse.
Surely it is time for a bit of solidarity here?
The one per cent cap on LHA will have been imposed by the Coalition, not Labour, so Labour must not be blamed for it.
The LHA was a measure to prevent abuse of the system by people moving into private accommodation that was too large for them and then claiming housing benefit so the taxpayer stumped up the rest of the cash. I hope you don’t think that is acceptable, especially in these times.
If it can be proven that this purpose has been perverted into something which the legislation did not intend – unforeseen consequences – then there is an argument for exceptions to be made, certainly.
But the main opposition to the LHA has always come from greedy private landlords who have been creaming all that lovely free taxpayers’ housing benefit money into their too-fat bank accounts after charging far too much for the accommodation they provide.
It’s maybe just that private tenants voices weren’t heard. There are plenty of us who object to LHA, and not because we’re living in mansions subsidised by the taxpayer. I’ve got a crappy terraced house with mould in the rooms, but there’s nowhere else to move to nearby. For the privilege of my children having a small room each, I had to find £40 a week from benefits.
And that came about because I tried to qualify as a teacher, so ended up with a “new claim” on the house. Labour really did hammer a lot of people with this, not just rich landlords.
have been watching the debate all morning….amazing speeches….
5th September 2014
Affordable Homes Bill: Second Reading Andrew George MP
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=15890&wfs=true
Especially Andrew George LD MP the proposer and Chris Bryant Shadow Minister for Welfare Reform
“The LHA was a measure to prevent abuse of the system by people moving into private accommodation that was too large for them and then claiming housing benefit so the taxpayer stumped up the rest of the cash. I hope you don’t think that is acceptable, especially in these times.
If it can be proven that this purpose has been perverted into something which the legislation did not intend – unforeseen consequences – then there is an argument for exceptions to be made, certainly.”
I don’t think you have grasped how hard the LHA hit some people, much of these would be in the same situations as bedroom tax sufferers, without the extra ‘security’ social housing usually provides.
In fact substitute ‘LHA’ for ‘Spare Room Subsidy’ in your first paragraph, and you’re sounding scarily like IDS or someone like that.
As an aside, who would you seem as not needing a ‘spare’ room? A 10 year old child sharing with a baby? ‘Weekend’ parents? A schizophrenic in shared accommodation? This goes way beyond affecting the disabled IMO.
Let’s just try that, shall we? I shan’t use the phrase ‘spare room subsidy’ because it does not exist and never has.
“The Bedroom Tax was a measure to prevent abuse of the system by people moving into social accommodation that was too large for them and then claiming housing benefit so the taxpayer stumped up the rest of the cash.”
Doesn’t work.
You know why?
Because the Bedroom Tax was forced upon people in the homes they had been allocated based on their need and the accommodation available – as is made abundantly clear in the article, for anybody to read! These people were not abusing the system – the Coalition government abused them by forcing a charge on people who were unable to avoid it (there being little or no ‘appropriately-sized’ accommodation for them to downsize into).
The two situations are totally different.
I think you give away your own loyalties by your reference to the aforementioned, non-existent ‘spare room subsidy’.
This is a simple matter. If you are renting from a private landlord and can afford extra space – pay for it. If you can’t – don’t. If you think you need it – prove it.
The ‘Spare Room Subsidy’ was used in that context to try and show you the parallels between your wording and the typical tory. It is a disgusting phrase, a subsidy needs to exist in the first place for it to be removed.
Your reply “These people were not abusing the system – the Coalition government abused them by forcing a charge on people who were unable to avoid it (there being little or no ‘appropriately-sized’ accommodation for them to downsize into).” gives the impression that you believe those affected by LHA were at worst abusing the HB system and at best had other options available to them so are again somehow at fault.
“This is a simple matter. If you are renting from a private landlord and can afford extra space – pay for it. If you can’t – don’t. If you think you need it – prove it.”
This is quite unbelievable…again you are sounding like a condem defending the bedroom tax! Prove they need the extra room to who? What about the examples I listed?
The simple matter from my point of view is the definition of a spare room, whether it be for bedroom tax or LHA purposes, is completely wrong.
It seems to me that your problem is with private landlords, not with me. If they offered enough properties of vary sizes to fit everybody’s needs, at a reasonable rent, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Some may find it interesting that the Briefing Paper produced by Westminster [somewhere], specifically to provide all MPs with ‘background’ for yesterdays debate states clearly in Paragraph 2.1 that:
“…Restrictions on entitlement to Housing Benefit based on the size of the accommodation occupied have applied to claimants living in privately rented housing since 1989 (Schedule 3 to the Rent Officers (Additional Function) Order 1989)…”
There, if ever there was any, is the definitive proof that the whole thing was, is & evermore shall be, a TORY policy.
Yes, it can be argued that Labour could have done things differently/better with LHA, or even changed the above legislation, but it was certainly NEVER Labour’s idea.
Still, people choose to argue and believe that it is all Labour’s fault. If there is to be solidarity between the LHA and BedroomTax ‘victims’, I would suggest it begins by making sure EVERYONE is made aware of the above statement and the blame laid well and truly at the feet of the Tory Party?
The full Briefing is available as a .pdf at the link below. Cheers.
http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN06968
I wasn’t aware of that.
This matter winds itself in ever more interesting patterns.
I wonder what Gaylord will have to say about it?
It is my understanding that dear Margaret was inclined to extend the size-criteria restrictions to social housing but was strongly advised against it as being potentially ‘politicaaly disastrous’.
Now there’s a thought!
Here is the original tory thing : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/590/made
I have no argument with who brought in size criteria. I agree with Paul that both sets of victims need to unite. My problem is that you Mike, in your efforts to defend Labour, are seeming somewhat callous to those private tenants already afflicted.
I wouldn’t want anybody to think I was siding against people who were being victimised.
My anger is directed at those who are seeking to pervert the definition of the Local Housing Allowance in an attempt to make it look as though the Bedroom Tax was a Labour policy that the Tories merely extended to the social rented sector. The two are different, for the reasons I gave in the article. It seems likely that landlords – especially Tory-voting landlords who stand to benefit if social tenants are forced to move to more expensive private accommodation – are stirring up this animosity for reasons of greed.
I stand by my comment that nobody should move into expensive private accommodation that is larger than they need, claim housing benefit on it and expect the taxpayer to cover the cost. However, I will modify that by adding that nobody should have to.
Cllr Paul Bull has tweeted this very important information:
“Local Housing Allowance under Labour was based on 50 per cent of market rent in Broad Rental Market Areas …and was enough for tenants to rent a bigger property than allowed for under Private Rented Sector size criteria (and by the way it is worth remembering that size criteria were introduced by the Tory Government in 1989).
“However, the Tory-led Coalition Governmentt reduced LHA to 30 per cent of market rent in Broad Rental Market Areas.
“More recenty, the Tory-led Coalition have frozen LHA and now increase it by less than inflation.
“It is the Tory-led Coalition Government’s treatment of LHA that has turned LHA into a *de facto* Bedroom Tax as LHA now often no longer covers rent of any property in the Private Rented Sector able to accommodate a tenant under the size criteria.”
I think that puts the final nail in this particular coffin, don’t you? Thanks to Cllr Bull for the information.
“I think that puts the final nail in this particular coffin, don’t you?”
Not for me. I was very definitely hit under the Labour government under Labour rules in a house I’d been renting for years. The Tories might have made it even worse, I wouldn’t be surprised, but it very definitely began under Labour.
I’m very sorry for you but the scheme under Labour seems as fair as it could be, in order to still be effective.